Of course it can be stopped. Second referendum and, if the result changes, a request to the EU to remain as provided by Article 50. Hell Parliament could even overrule and second vote. The reality is that we’re fucked whatever happens. Stay in and mess of an institution that is the EU likely goes unreformed. Take a half Brexit and try and stay in the CU and we’re forced to not only still play ball with the EU but are restricted in trade deals with everyone else - and there will no doubt be some level of deal in those circumstances to maintain EEA free movement. Go hard Brexit and we have to negotiate with everyone from scratch, which we aren’t allowed to do until we’ve exited. Plus, whatever happens, March 2019 is the date and we will have no deal by then or by the end of a two year transitional period because there are so many knock on effects that have to be addressed it is farcical that anyone expects them all to be wrapped up in a matter of a short few years, whatever the deal. The whole thing is clusterfuck triggered by a simplistic referendum voted for by majority of people who didn’t have a clue about just what it all entails. For every smart Brexiter there are five to ten Daily Mail idiots who voted to leave because they heard a foreign accent on the street and shit their pants. Those cunts haven’t got a clue about international treaties, the Customs Union, trade deals or whatever else. All they think is Brexit=good and somehow it’ll all work out.
Got a lot of time for Ecky and he is a friend, but like I just said to Anc, if he honestly thinks the majority of Brexiters were truly informed of the consequence of their vote then he’s off his head. Yes, there are intelligent Brexiters with a good argument and intelligent discourse. But one has to be in serious denial to think the Brexit vote wasn’t proped up by not only people who had no clue of the sheer magnitude of their vote but also those who were swayed by the usual populist, limited panics about immigration, no sovereignty and so on. Again, while there are many intelligent Brexiters, where is the Brexit vote most prevalent? The more insular communities. The more ill educated. The ‘little man’ with his blue collar job. There is a reason for that and it isn’t just about the poor misunderstood working man.
Much as on a very basic level I'd like to agree, the whole thing is much more complicated than that. The issue of Irish unity isn't on the table here, probably rightly so because it would cause a literal civil war. And adding that clusterfuck to this clusterfuck certainly isn't the way to go.
And how much did the news media help with that? Was there a lot of careful explaining of the process and risks and rewards? Or was most of the time spent repeating talking points and following the power struggles among the politicians involved?
EU smells blood in the water; won't give London privileged access to their financial market. https://www.ft.com/content/2515a27e-47aa-11e8-8ee8-cae73aab7ccb
The latter. But at the same time the buck stops with the politicians, not the media. If the politicians aren’t being honest about the complexity and consequences of it all then the media are effectively given a free pass to print what they like.
I also thought it would be possible but Very Serious People have explained to me that Brexit is a done deal. No matter how bad the deal ends up being, how sluggish the UK's economy gets, Brexit today, Brexit tomorrow, Brexit forever.
See the reactions and replies to this post: https://wordforge.net/index.php?threads/brexit-lololol.114525/#post-3005243
Well, I'm still not sure who the "very serious people" are, but in my opinion Parliamentary approval of a final deal is essential. A referendum is an advisory vote not a legally binding one, no matter what people might say about democracy. The idea that it is cast is stone was utter nonsense. It wasn't even binding until Parliament made it so by approving the outcome by way of legislation. Parliamentary review of and vote on the final legislation is essential because MPs are democratically elected to scrutinise and debate any legal and/or constitutional changes, which is the effect of a deal. If we end up with a bum deal then legislation can be introduced in Parliament requiring a vote on the terms of the deal or a second full on referendum if necessary. The only true legal bar to a reversal would be if we requested to halt the exist process or rejoin and the EU said no, which they would almost certainly not do. The duty of an MP, and therefore Parliament, is to primarily look after the interests of their constituents and therefore the country, that's not always just about following popular opinion - and of course if Parliament was restricted to just a debate on a deal with the deal going through whatever they think, that in of itself would be grossly undemocratic and against the Parliamentary sovereignty that many Brexiters claimed they wanted. I personally think the outcome of the referendum vote should be respected and the majority of MPs have done that. But I would not be surprised to see either a deal blocked by Parliament or further questions put to the public by way of further referenda, whether in or out or a review of a deal or multiple stages of the deal. Anyone who tells you none of this will happen is either being disingenuous or simply doesn't understand Parliament's constitutional role. The sheer number of changes Brexit makes to our standing in the world and the consequences that flow from them, like negotiating and approving new treaties, will require Parliament to be deeply involved. I just cannot see a situation where MPs just sit by and wave through any deal without question just because we are on the two year ticking clock thanks to the PM wanting to be seen to be implementing the public's wishes.
Leaked internal documents show that the May government has known for a while that all their proposals for the Ireland border issue are both unworkable and would cause significant harm to the N.I. economy. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...ands-economy-leaked-analysis-shows/ar-AAwmr5p
As Brexit and a large portion of Conservative support are based on xenophobia this feels relevant. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43944988 The wages of sin is death. Bye, bye Amber.
Considering most bills have to be voted on at least twice before becoming laws, where's the harm in requiring a momentous decision like this be subjected to two votes?
As for not binding: usually, constitutional changes (yea I know there is none but nevertheless) require a 2/3rd majority of the popular vote in most civilized countries. Makes sense because such changes are usually so great to the fabric of a nation that they need support from a really large portion of the population. Or, in short: to prevent idiocy like Brexit from happening unless there are real, tangible problems. The correct way to do this would be to do another referendum. A binding one this time and with a required majority that does the gravity of the situation justice. What happened was a fucking clown show. Parliament should have stopped this craziness.
The people were lied to and it's wrong wrong WRONG when a tiny percentage decides the fate of everybody. It's direct 'democracy' at its worst (I'm not a fan in any regard and even less when it comes to decisions of such gravity 'the people' cannot grasp what is at stake).
You're saying this because the first vote provided a result you support, and you're scared a second vote will not. Would you support a national referendum where a 50% +1 vote would eliminate the 2nd amendment?
Well, that's irrelevant for the UK since, as you know, our constitutional is not a single written constitution. Parliament is supreme and at the end of the day it is both within Parliament's power to both make the result binding and overturn it. No. A re-run solves nothing if people are still unaware of the complexities of it all. It won't be binding unless Parliament says so and that can still be undone by an Act of Parliament. So it would be no different from the previous one. A majority is a majority. This is just sour grapes with respect. You're basically putting those who want to leave on an unfair footing with those who want to remain. Your 2/3 example and just that, an example of what happens in some other countries. It is not necessarily the right thing and some might argue it is an intentional barrier to major change. As I explained above, it is still within Parliament's power to do so. But we need to remember that democracy isn't always pretty and doesn't always give us either what we want or what is the most sensible thing (Trump!). To dismiss out of hand the majority that voted leave is to refuse to recognise the years and years of anti-EU sentiment that had built up in much of Britain. Sooner or later it was going to have to be addressed. The "clown show" was not putting it to the people. It should have been put to the people to get the issue out of the way once and for all. It was the manner in which it was done and the lack of information and political honesty to leave voters informed by the time they cast their ballot that is the problem. What you are arguing for though is a bit silly. You're basically saying "I don't like the result so the solution is to rig the system so that it is impossible for a second referendum to give any other result than the one I'd like to see" and you're saying this with the benefit of hindsight because you know the vote split already. Nah, sorry. That's not the way forward. It's dishonest. All you achieve by that is further dividing the electorate and causing mass unrest among leavers, who would say, quite correctly, that it was unfair. It also reeks of political elitism. Deeming the electorate too stupid to make a decision, knowing what's best for them and therefore setting up a system where they can never truly get what they might want. That sort of attitude is in part what has led to Brexit, the rise of Trump and the rise of far left and far right popularism in Europe and America. You can't treat the public like they are dummies (even if many are) as it will backfire eventually - and if you re-run a referendum with a 2/3 majority requirement, especially knowing the voter split, you're doing just that. If there is to be a second referendum on all or part of the deal, or on leaving in total, then it should be a majority vote like the last one - only this time the campaigns should be conducted properly and information provided to the electorate as to the consequences of their vote and the issues a leave vote would result in. Those of us who voted remain need to approach this with intelligence, not as sore losers who will do whatever it takes to avoid leaving, which I would not want to see anyway as the EU is in dire need of reform and the last thing I want is for us to stay in at any cost and weaken any say we might have in the future European model. A mature remainer should accept the vote result and focus on making sure Parliament scrutinises every step and makes sure that the necessary blocks are put in place as and when it becomes clear it is not in the interests of the country.
He probably wouldn't, but it would be a fair vote. You're probably just as much a hypocrite as him though when it comes to this argument. What would you prefer decided the last US presidential election? The Electoral College or the majority vote? The latter is a much more honest form of democracy and as sure as I'm siting here you'd argue that Hillary Clinton should have been President on the basis it was what most Americans desired.
And you're only advocating for a revote because the first vote provided a result you don't support. As for the vote on the second ammendment, firstly this is a false equivalent, you're comparing a right versus a trade and travel agreement, and secondly, I will remind you that the last time there was a constitutional ban on a good, the country experienced the most violent time in it's civil history.
It's only a "right" because it's been drummed into you as such. Right now, it is a "right" of mine to move freely throughout the EEA, but that could well change in the next year. So I don't accept the "trade and travel agreement" simplification which grossly simplifies the EU. But yes, you're right. He'd not want a second vote if 51% voted remain. He should be honest and admit that.
Oh no, you'll have to get a passport to travel to another country like the rest of the world. How horrible. Let me ask you, the E.U. leadership is H.Q.d is brussels, do you, as a citizen of an E.U. member nation get any say in the leadership? Is there any accountability in the E.U. leadership?
You assume incorrectly, good sir. Nope. My bank asks me twice if I really want to withdraw $20, and when I order pizza online they make me reconfirm that I really want exactly what I've ordered. Shouldn't something slightly more important than a pizza be subject to a second vote as well? That said, you're right, I wouldn't expect another vote to reconfirm the failure of a proposal, because that's generally not a thing.
See, I could be just a flippant and say you lot should grow up like the rest of the world and stop glorying guns. You're lecturing @14thDoctor about double standards but right here you show your own hypocrisy. Trivialising one person's rights while thinking one you have is untouchable and psuedo divine. No, which is why I am pro-reform, not that this question has a damn thing to do with what I said to you.
I disagree with your thinking that travel across soverign borders is a right. It's literally the thing that makes countries countries. Europe is made up of different countries, not unified states.
Hasn't brexit only been a failure because of the weakness of Teresa May? Wasn't she a huge remainer? Didn't she call for an early election (because THATS a symbol of stability) that weakened her own political power?
