Brexit is a Mess, how do we Fix it.

There will be a second referendum, onlt this time it will be fixed to remain and after reading all about how much difficult it will be to move about Europe, i'm thinking of switching my vote to remain anyway.

a reply to: SprocketUK

The government asked and was told by 17 million plus people that we want out of the EU.

Yeah but just over 16 million said they wanted to remain and 28% of folk just didn't bother to even vote (granted still really high voter turn out).

Just saying there is another way of looking at those numbers.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


Like I said, the rules of the vote were set up by the pro remain government, so abstentions are irrelevant, as are the votes to remain, the government never set a threshold and to try to change the rules after the fact speaks of doctoring to get the result they originally wanted.

It was remain hubris that led to this.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


Like I said, the rules of the vote were set up by the pro remain government, so abstentions are irrelevant, as are the votes to remain, the government never set a threshold and to try to change the rules after the fact speaks of doctoring to get the result they originally wanted.

It was remain hubris that led to this.

I think they should have put in place a supermajority, passing with 51.9% of the vote is a bit of a joke, I think they should have asked for a clear win because 51.9% isn't really all that clear and you're right it was their hubris that lead to this mess. no doubt about it.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: biggilo

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: oldcarpy

wait a minute....
the brexit referendum was not legally binding?

No, referendums carry no weight in UK law. They are not enshrined in law so can be completely ignored. As such, they are completely worthless.

so then if the sitting government does not want to brexit why would they?

Really asking that question?

What would happen if a sitting government went against the democratic will of its people?

how is wanting another vote any different than the government just not enforcing the non legally binding result of another?

Because multiple votes are possible, the will of the people can change and given that we now know much more about the consequences of Breixt there is a very strong argument to be had that the will of the people has changed.

I think though a second Brexit referendum is unlikely, like I said in the OP at best I think it should be delayed to allow for more negotiation.

But to be fair we don't really know what the consequences, good or bad will be.

errr yeah we don and its looking pretty darn grim.

Im not entirely sure on that. I know we haven't left yet, but the economy is growing nicely still. Worse case, it certainly looks like it may go downhill for a while.

Economics was only part of my reason for remain though, i simply think that in a globally connected world (unlike days of old) we are better together than apart in pretty much every sphere of influence - science, environment, economy, defence, etc.

For me, the EU was never an evil entity. I would have campaigned like mad for major EU reform though. Getting rid of the commissioners and their power would have been a priority and is something the EU has been trying to achieve for years. Unfortunately for them, the commissioners came up with the EU and worded their power and influence into all agreements. A simple example, it is entirely down to them that the EU has to waste so much money moving between Brussells and Strasbourg twice a week.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

No there isn't - its a first past the post system, we voted out and out it should be.

Should we allow moving the goalposts after every vote or election in the UK just to accommodate the political elite who are petrified of losing their place at the trough?

If this is not implemented why should we respect anything any government decrees.....it will be the biggest betrayal of the British people since Oliver Cromwell sold us down the river!

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

And yet they are fighting tooth and nail, being hard as stone on trade deals and negotiations. Seems to me like they're fighting as much as possible to stop us from leaving. I mean it wouldn't have anything to do with how much money we put into the bloc or how our intelligence is one of the not just in the bloc but across the world. Why people are making out the EU to be the saint in all this is strange to me. Why is it so wrong that a country has voted to leave and those who voted to leave aren't allowed to see their vote and the results of it come through?

Out is out and it should've happened two years ago when the vote was done. Trade deals can be done later. We leave and we should leave as soon as possible. All the BS about medical stock piling and the flow of trade stopping is total bunk it would continue as is but with checks it might take time to sort out trade but we would be free from the EU.

And if we're not that tied into their system then it should be easy for us to leave but what a surprise the concept of someone leaving the EU is so out there that they didn't even have a mechanism for that to be possible and yet we're the bad guys for wanting to leave.

a reply to: Freeborn

Which is why a second referendum would help with all of this...

Think about it, if a second referendum goes through and it shows that 51% still want to leave, then folk like me really has lost the argument.

If however the result comes back at something like 60% wanting to remain then sorry but yeah, things have changed, the will of the people has changed, cancel Brexit.

If your so confident that its good for the country and can make your case for it (and I must say you do make good arguments, however much I might disagree) then whats the problem?

a reply to: Freeborn

If this is not implemented why should we respect anything any government decrees.....it will be the biggest betrayal of the British people since Oliver Cromwell sold us down the river!

I can see how it would be hard to trust any government after taking a vote directly from the people and not implementing the result.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

1% win when it is in favour of the EU in other countries has been plenty and not even questioned. Why should we expect any different?

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


Like I said, the rules of the vote were set up by the pro remain government, so abstentions are irrelevant, as are the votes to remain, the government never set a threshold and to try to change the rules after the fact speaks of doctoring to get the result they originally wanted.

It was remain hubris that led to this.

I don't even think it was Remain hubris. I think it was political hubris by Cameron. He didn't think Leave would win (moreso, he didn't think they had a chance) and he thought that by having the referendum he would look saintly and put the issue to bed for the forseeable future.

Which, in itself, wouldn't be so bad if the other parties had got their acts together. Unfortunately for the British public, the other parties were as inept with this issue as can be expected.

About the only good thing to come out of this whole debacle is that some decent politicians from all sides (generally younger and still not ground down by the political game) have started to emerge from under the rocks. Not many but it shows there are some there at Westminster!

originally posted by: biggilo
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

1% win when it is in favour of the EU in other countries has been plenty and not even questioned. Why should we expect any different?

Would be curious to see a source on that....

I would say thats its just such a massive change we are looking to make, its a matter of political opinion I guess and in my view they should have set a clear supermajority for leaving the EU.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

any other rules you would like before the 2nd vote?
perhaps a clause for a third vote if this one is too close or doesnt go your way?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

There's been quite a few but a good start would be to look up the 'petit oui'

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

any other rules you would like before the 2nd vote?
perhaps a clause for a third vote if this one is too close or doesnt go your way?

I don't understand why people don't think their should be clear parameters for something that requires fundamental constitutional change? It is a one time thing, not like an election.

Now no parameters were put in place so it doesn't really affect this issue, the decision has been made. But surely people can know understand the need for any such future major decisions?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Do you equally support a clear supermajority clause for the next Scottish independence referendum?
Your only answer can really be yes then?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Think about it, if a second referendum goes through and it shows that 51% still want to leave, then folk like me really has lost the argument.

We have already had the argument, which you really did lose?

a reply to: Flavian

Soft, hard, in the customs union but out of freedom of movement eta, it's all just designed to sow doubt and confusion so that remain can have another referendum and brainwash people who maybe aren't well schooled on things into voting a different way.
We were asked if we wanted to leave and it should really be as simple as that, we want nothing to do with the EU, no single market, no customs union and no freedom of movement. It shouldn't matter how big the win is, a win is a win and if you didn't turn out to vote tough
We are the single biggest market for some of their biggest companies, if they want to let a francophile French civil servant who is hoping to steal a few jobs for France destroy their industries we should be prepared to accept that and take action in return.
.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Do you equally support a clear supermajority clause for the next Scottish independence referendum?
Your only answer can really be yes then?

As a yes voter I would absolutely agree there should be some form of special rule required for major constitutional change.

Not sure if a supermajority is best option but think should require more than a simple majority in a one off vote.

Even more importantly the rules should be set and apply the same for all major votes. Unfortunately that would require us having a real constitution first.

I think the only fair way of having a second ref, is to act on the first one, leave, work out all the kinks, then after a year or two ask the people if they want to give up the freedom and join the EU.