Sorry about this.. I didn't think it would sit in the EU election thread and apologies that its another brexit thread if some people are peed off. However, polite views are welcome... After consideration my view is that we SHOULD have another referendum. I dont like referenda actually but on brexit I think the issue is crying out for one. The politicians don't know how to carry brexit out and/or are incapable of doing so OR dont want to do it at all so, the only thing that can end the chapter is another confirmatory vote. The electorate must be given the chance to tell the politicians how they (the electors) wish to proceed. The country voted to leave so therefore in my mind there should be two leave options on the ballot.A) No deal - this must be an option for people who see brexit as a complete break. B) The negotiated deal (probably May's as it stands) ad the only deal with the EU on the table. C) Remain in the EU (if people have changed their minds). The vote should be STV/ preferential and whichever outcome gets the ultimate majority should be immediately honoured by law. So, if people want to define leaving the EU by no deal then we should do it. If people want a deal, however unsatisfactory it may be then it should be implemented. If people, overall have changed their minds then we should stay in the EU. I'm not decrying the result of the first ref which was to leave but the country is so divided and the first vote so close and in its technicalities so vague about what brexit actually is so lets go back to the people and get a democratic confirmation that one of those options is the best way forward. Then we can all move on.
At least with a fresh referendum people have a clear choice what they are voting for. By giving 1st and second preferences even weight in the second round Leave still has an advantage, unless people realise not to give a second preference.
****** to ‘the people’. We live in a parliamentary democracy. If people don’t like that, lobby for change (or if impatient, move to Switzerland). So Parliament should decide these things. If MPs think they are elected to ‘represent their constituents’ they should also receive a lesson in what it means to be an MP. P.s Cameron should fave a prison term for what he has inflicted on the Country in order to deal with an internal Conservative matter. Incompetence without precedent since 1945.
Remain will probably win and then the 17m people who voted leave will feel completely disenfranchised - divisive for years. Secondly, do we really know any more than we did two years ago in terms of the impact of leaving with/without a deal?
In that case then we shouldn't bother voting for a new government ever again, you know, cos we've already voted...
The simple fact is that the referendum result has never been accepted by people like Alistair Campbell. Instead of campaigning for another divisive vote efforts should have been concentrated towards making the best deal for the sake of the country, and taking the opportunity to reshape our future. The referendum should have been honoured because it was the simplest way forward. Imagine if remain won a second vote with a 52% majority, and then Scotland voted for independence, tipping the balance back to leave. It will go on forever.
I voted remain. Because leaving would in my opinion damage the economy by creating uncertainty Perhaps an overly simplistic view, I think we should leave now without a ‘deal’. Democracy should be honoured. The negotiations have been handled appallingly but we are where we are and what we can’t have is more uncertainty. There would be short term pain for the economy but the markets would ultimately prevail. We have had 3 years to put plans into place technology etc to deal with this, let’s hope that at least something has been done. That said it looks like it would be impossible to get no deal through parliament What a total mess it is - complete incompetence at the highest level
Three thoughts for me on this. 1. It is a nonsense to me to say that the public had a vote three years ago on this when they didn't know what 'leave' entailed, yet they should be denied one now that we (allegedly) have a clearer idea of what leaving means. 2. As things stand, the only options at present are leave with no deal or remain. A compromise is clearly not possible and there is no agreed compromise deal on the table. That was not apparent in 2016 when some leave campaigners promised we could leave and enjoy "the exact same benefits". Now we know we can't, and the choice should be re-offered on that more honest basis. 3. No 'best of three'. If remain wins, nothing further is required - we bat on while trying to continue to reform from within. If leave wins - that's it. We would deserve all we got.
Ok...1st I agree that the vote 3 years ago was an ill informed affair compared to what we kno nah. 2nd..keep hearing about the disenfranchised leavers...17 million people if it goes bk to remain.. but we already have 16 million disenfranchised reamain voters from 2016 plus only 73% voted so 27% who didnt express a preference who may this time. 3rd If a votes a vote somebody tell that woman in scotland cos she lost her referendum AND got trashed at the general rlection bt she's bk agen for anutha go..wants a vote nxt year...why !!! cos things have changed. Back to the people for me...
Calls for a second referendum is coming from remainders who have no intention of changing their vote. It’s basically a campaign to frighten the leave voters to change theirs. We should have just left. It’s not as though there is never going to be a deal with the EU. Trying to sort a deal before we left puts the EU on the front foot. Leaving first would put us on the front foot.