2nd Referendum

All the negotiations should have been concluded before Article 50 was triggered so that neither side had a gun to their head. The act of triggering Article 50 was an attempt to force the EU to accept our terms, in such circumstances what normally happens is that the party under such pressure tends to dig their heels in, hence the accusations of intransigence against the EU.

Basically Mrs May did everything wrong from the very outset.

 

That's nothing like, but fair enough.

 

The fact we haven't been able to act on the referendum should be enough reason to stop this shitstorm and put it back to the people.

 

At last, someone else who sees things how they are and how it should be...

Great Post!!!

 

I dont think the 2016 referendum could have been made any clearer

 

Fully agree and as I was saying yesterday it ought to be decided in Parliament but can't be. The problem now on the brexit issue is that you can't trust all MPs to make a decision based on the good of the people rather than self interest. Tory MPs are now undoubtedly scared stiff of not delivering brexit because they know there's every chance of being wiped out at the next election if they don't.
I hate referenda but my feeling is that I'd prefer that to a parliamentary vote.
And this comment isn't designed to start an argument on the pros and cons of brexit. I think that's been done to death this week.

 

That's great - I agree. In that case we can all rally around membership of EFTA or something like 'Norway+', as discussed in the run-up. I'm sure it would keep the remainers happy, and people who voted leave would still be getting exactly what they voted for. Seems like the easiest way to satisfy the majority of people.

 

I agree PT, but having said that, were we being told the truth regarding the possible/ likely outcomes,
which at the time, were probably not fully understood.? For example, one of the things to emerge since the
referendum was held that has greatly concerned me, is the possible shortage of vital medical supplies
like insulin, if we do in fact leave the EU.

I can't remember any immediate and drastic impact it had on the Country as a whole when we first joined the CM/EU back in 1973. If my memory serves me correctly, my family and those around us, still struggled to make
ends meet financially and for a lot of folk in and around that same area where I grew up, things would
appear to still be pretty tough.

My Dad was interested in politics and I always remember as a kid, he was not a fan of the French, who I believe
twice attempted to block the UK's entry to the CM/EU. It's amazing to me, that given their long standing aversion, that
the French and the other EU members now seem to be doing their level best to frustrate our efforts to leave, by giving
us what the " experts" are telling us is a bad deal.

Again, not having seen any statistics to support an " argument" either way, I've often thought, how did we perform
financially/ commercially pre-1973, compared to the corresponding forty six or so years since we first entered the Common Market/EU.? It would be interesting to see some stats on that topic.

The problem has definitely divided the Nation and I never fail but to remain utterly confused. I listened a former Chancellor Nigel Lawson the other day, explaining why it's imperative that we deliver on Brexit, to then only see his former Cabinet colleague Heseltine on TV, saying why in his view, it would not be prudent for "us " to leave.

Like a lot of my fellow citizens, I am getting hacked off hearing little else but Brexit every day since 2016. Roll on August 2019, so that our attention can be re-focused on more important matters other than politics of course.

 

Reading a lot of the comments on here most who are in favour of a second vote, fall into two categories:
1) No deal is bad news
2) People are more informed/change of mind.

Does that not mean in reality the issue here is not about staying or going but the fact that the government have failed to manage the process in a competent manner?
If this is correct then why are these people not campaigning for a change in management?

 

If remain would have won by the same margin in 2016, would we be having this debate now or for the last 3 years, im not so sure.
I keep hearing the phrase 'we didnt know what we were voting for', i agree with previous posters in that it couldnt have been clearer. Also following the referendum, there was a general election and the tories got in again by bribing the DUP to make up their majority, did voters know what they were voting for there, defo not but there was no great push for another vote for that. The whole situation is far from ideal but another referendum on the same subject so close to the orginal one could have massive implications on the political landscape of this country, not to mention the upheaval it would cause.

 

Probably, yes. From November 2016.

 

If it couldn't be clearer, which of the 8 or 9 varieties of leave that have been rejected in parliament was the one voted for?

 

We are now 3 years since the referendum, and no real, practical solutions have been found for the major problems. We still have lies, outright lies, spin and distractions (from all sides) and Parliament (and the public) has no consensus around any way out.

As for it being clear, we had people arguing for Norway/Switzerland in 2016 (looking at you Farage and most of the Tory leadership candidates), who now claim that anything that has any connection to the EU at all is a betrayal of the vote. Racism is on the rise, EU citizens in the UK have had their rights compromised against the promises of politicians at the time *and* didn't have the right to vote in it (although Commonwealth citizens on a few week visit could).

It has now broken two PMs and we are about to get a 3rd, which would be the *fifth* government since June 2016. The average lifespan of a UK government is currently under a year and people around the world are laughing at the UK. The voting population has changed by 2.5-3 million people. We were allowed a general election (which removed the support for the Tory Brexit plan), MPs had 3 opportunities to vote on May's deal, yet the 2016 vote is held in stone as immutable.

 

Your analogy is quite wrong...

It’s not like that at all. There is still no idea of what you will get, but you assume you’ll get a poop sandwich.

We are in a very similar position to where we were at the last vote. So no need for another.

 

But the point of a second vote would be for it to be a confirmatory vote, when there is a deal to vote on.

 

But it’s already been confirmed.?