Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Guided Missile]

Despite Brexit:

UK employment rate of 76.1% is the highest since comparable records began in the early 1970s.

Inactivity dropped to a record-low of 20.7%.

Also:

Unemployment rate of 3.9%, lowest since Feb-75.

And:

Real pay growth of 1.3%y/y

 

Going back 2 years, Mark Carnage and the Treasury forecast:

The impact of a vote to leave the EU:

In the ‘shock’ scenario, which uses cautious assumptions and links the size of the transition effect to the central estimate of the UK adopting a negotiated bilateral agreement with the EU, GDP would be around 3.6% lower after two years compared to the forecast for continued growth after a vote to remain. Average real wages would be nearly 3% lower, which is a pay cut of almost £800 a year for someone working full time on the average wage.

500,000 UK jobs would be lost and the value of the pound would fall by around 12%. Inflation would also increase by over 2 percentage points and the value of people’s homes would be hit by 10% compared to Britain remaining in the EU, with a rise in uncertainty from current levels similar to that experienced in the UK during the early 1990s recession.

In this scenario net government borrowing would increase by around £24 billion, compared with a vote to remain.

[Highfield Saint]

[sadoldgit]

Just wondering... are the people who kick off about those who want a second referendum the same ones who are now complaining because Bercow will not allow May to keep bringing her Brexit plan back unchanged until MPs accept it?

Double standards?

[Window Cleaner]

Just wondering... are the people who kick off about those who want a second referendum the same ones who are now complaining because Bercow will not allow May to keep bringing her Brexit plan back unchanged until MPs accept it?

Double standards?

 

Bercow's bit of publicity seeking will probably have no effect whatsoever. If the government have the votes for the decision they are seeking, then the motion will be brought before parliament. If they don't then Bercow's action suits them down to the ground.

[hypochondriac]

This isn't in bad faith, so I don't think it would be an issue - it was triggered too early, we all know that, and it least now we know what "deal" is possible with the EU.

 

For me, the biggest issue is still NI and contravening the GFA. If the vote was held again, and it was well known that it could lead to a return to sectarian violence in the British Isles, I think it would lead to further votes changing sides.

 

I think it would be hard to argue that if we were to revoke article 50 and then attempt to go through this all again in a year or so. We won't revoke it but if we did, we won't be triggering article 50 again unless we get a new government with completely different policies which isn't going to happen.

[edprice1984]

I think it would be hard to argue that if we were to revoke article 50 and then attempt to go through this all again in a year or so. We won't revoke it but if we did, we won't be triggering article 50 again unless we get a new government with completely different policies which isn't going to happen.

 

Revoking Article 50 is the Hydrogen Bomb option. As would a prorogation of Parliament. In both cases, I could see civil unrest.

 

Realistically (and it would be up to Bercow and the Clerks to decide if this constitutes 'Substantial change') the PM can only bring back the deal for a third time if she amends it in one of two ways:

 

1. Pass the deal with an amended departure date - whether that is 30th June or a date further in the future

 

2. Pass the deal and we will hold a final confirmatory referendum (with an extended date of departure).

 

If Labour swung behind the latter, it would pass the deal (245 MP's), plus the Independent Group, Lib Dems, SNP etc etc it would overwhelmingly be enough to get the deal through. If May and the Government can't get something sorted by the weekend, it is pretty much the only option remaining on the table.

 

The likes of Rees-Mogg, Farage, Boris and the ERG will cry and moan, but it will also present an opportunity to get rid of May. She will have to lead the campaign to Leave the EU on the deal. No matter the result, she will be forced to resign.

[Window Cleaner]

Revoking Article 50 is the Hydrogen Bomb option. As would a prorogation of Parliament. In both cases, I could see civil unrest.

 

Realistically (and it would be up to Bercow and the Clerks to decide if this constitutes 'Substantial change') the PM can only bring back the deal for a third time if she amends it in one of two ways:

 

1. Pass the deal with an amended departure date - whether that is 30th June or a date further in the future

 

2. Pass the deal and we will hold a final confirmatory referendum (with an extended date of departure).

 

If Labour swung behind the latter, it would pass the deal (245 MP's), plus the Independent Group, Lib Dems, SNP etc etc it would overwhelmingly be enough to get the deal through. If May and the Government can't get something sorted by the weekend, it is pretty much the only option remaining on the table.

 

The likes of Rees-Mogg, Farage, Boris and the ERG will cry and moan, but it will also present an opportunity to get rid of May. She will have to lead the campaign to Leave the EU on the deal. No matter the result, she will be forced to resign.

 

No, parliament can vote to overide the Speaker's decision I believe. If May has the votes to pass her deal then she has the votes to overide the Speaker.

[Saint86]

Oh make no mistake, the fear of another referendum from the 52% is absolutely nothing to do with democracy but absolutely everything to do with the fact that now we've all seen what Brexit really is and what it really means, the leave vote would be annihilated.

 

The guardian showed in the last week 57% don't support a second referendum (on any deal or remain) and that a staggering 43% want no deal....

 

I think there is only a mandate for leaving. If their is a second referendum the only acceptable question will be hard brexit / soft brexit (not remain). And the longer it goes on the worse the hardcore "no deal" vote will get.

 

Are people not understanding that if this political class could have won a second referendum they would have called it already!

Edited 19 March, 2019 by Saint86

[buctootim]

The guardian showed in the last week 57% don't support a second referendum (on any deal or remain) and that a staggering 43% want no deal....

 

I think there is only a mandate for leaving.

 

Public opinion is conflicted though. A majority don't want a second referendum, but if there were one then around 58% would vote to remain. If you dont have a majority for change, particularly constitutional change then you stick with the status quo. The only mandate really is to remain.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Despite Brexit:

UK employment rate of 76.1% is the highest since comparable records began in the early 1970s.

Inactivity dropped to a record-low of 20.7%.

Also:

Unemployment rate of 3.9%, lowest since Feb-75.

And:

Real pay growth of 1.3%y/y

 

Going back 2 years, Mark Carnage and the Treasury forecast:

 

 

I can't go into it now, as about to drive, but it is widely recognised that recent wage growth is due to market correction from the previous 8-10 years.

 

I'm sure if Shurlock is around he can confirm this.

[edprice1984]

No, parliament can vote to overide the Speaker's decision I believe. If May has the votes to pass her deal then she has the votes to overide the Speaker.

 

This is true. But she currently doesn't have anywhere near enough votes to pass the deal - let alone over-ride the speaker. The time wasting in December has finally caught up with the PM.

 

Saint86 - I remember seeing a poll with those stats, but I can't remember (or find) it in the Guardian. The problem with these polls, on both sides, is that the sample numbers are simply too small. Personally even though I am a staunch Remainer, I can just about cope with the Deal - however No Deal is simply not acceptable. It would be catastrophic for this country. The Political class that you mention includes the ERG and Brexiteers as much as The Independent Group etc. The reason a 2nd ref hasn't been called yet is because there has been a genuine, if flawed, attempt to respect the 1st one. If 80% of the electorate had voted to Leave, I suspect we would have done so very quickly. The problem is that whenever people mention the 17.4 million; 52% etc (in which you have varying ideas of what Brexit should or could be I might add); they discount the 48% who voted to Remain. The reason the PM has searched for compromise is because from the very outset the country has been divided, and she has tried to find an agreement that the majority of people could support.

 

Unfortunately her red lines and her unwillingness to consult across Parliament on the plan before enacting Article 50 has meant she could never command any majority. I also think that Corbyn and the Labour party have been trying to play a political game rather than actually acting in the countries best interests - this idea of not helping your enemy etc has meant that both sides are so entrenched that it would be politically suicidal to reach out in any meaningful way.

 

I came to the conclusion that a 2nd referendum was almost inevitable after the first defeat of the Meaningful vote in January, mainly due to the scale of the defeat. If she had lost by less than 100 - you could see a way out by using the deadline as a means to pressure the Brexiteers and Labour MP's in Leave constituencies into supporting the deal. But because it was such a massive loss, it meant that she would only get one more go and the scale of the challenge was to big to overcome.

 

The EU are unwilling to negotiate any further on the Deal; the Attorney General will find it very difficult to change his advice to satisfy the DUP and ERG without further changes. Therefore the only realistic options in terms of amending the motion so it gets passed Bercow are the two I outlined above. A short extension is fine, but for what reason...if she can't change the deal, we end up back at square 1 and probably more likely to end up with No Deal. However MP's have already spotted that danger and I would suspect Labour would then attach the Kyle/Wilson amendment to the motion to force a 2nd ref on the deal.

 

A referendum on a Hard/Soft Brexit will not work because it again ignores the 48% from the original referendum. Even a No Deal v Remain is preferable because at least it reflects the split in the electorate.

 

There is no easy fix and I am quite prepared to be proved wrong, however it is important to remember every time you see Mogg, Johnson, and the rest of the ERG bleating on TV about the loss of Brexit, it was their choice to vote against the only deal on the table.

[Window Cleaner]

Aha. The Boss is going to sort it out, I expect the BBC will soon catch up.

[Highfield Saint]

Apparently the EU are concerned that if an extension is granted then UK will have a seat at the table which sets the next EU budget and that it may demand a better deal in order not to veto. Shouldn't this have been thought through when Article 50 was invoked? A big missed opportunity?

[badgerx16]

LOL at the Tory MPs who have voted twice to veto May's deal, but are complaining that the Speaker's decision on a 3rd vote means that they now can't change their minds and vote in favour of something they have consistently rejected.

[Window Cleaner]

LOL at the Tory MPs who have voted twice to veto May's deal, but are complaining that the Speaker's decision on a 3rd vote means that they now can't change their minds and vote in favour of something they have consistently rejected.

 

They're still hoping for something a little bit more in their favour I believe. They might even get it as well, won't be much but Merkel is going to intervene with whatever is possible and necessary to avoid a no-deal.

[Mosin]

This is true. But she currently doesn't have anywhere near enough votes to pass the deal - let alone over-ride the speaker. The time wasting in December has finally caught up with the PM.

 

Saint86 - I remember seeing a poll with those stats, but I can't remember (or find) it in the Guardian. The problem with these polls, on both sides, is that the sample numbers are simply too small. Personally even though I am a staunch Remainer, I can just about cope with the Deal - however No Deal is simply not acceptable. It would be catastrophic for this country. The Political class that you mention includes the ERG and Brexiteers as much as The Independent Group etc. The reason a 2nd ref hasn't been called yet is because there has been a genuine, if flawed, attempt to respect the 1st one. If 80% of the electorate had voted to Leave, I suspect we would have done so very quickly. The problem is that whenever people mention the 17.4 million; 52% etc (in which you have varying ideas of what Brexit should or could be I might add); they discount the 48% who voted to Remain. The reason the PM has searched for compromise is because from the very outset the country has been divided, and she has tried to find an agreement that the majority of people could support.

 

Unfortunately her red lines and her unwillingness to consult across Parliament on the plan before enacting Article 50 has meant she could never command any majority. I also think that Corbyn and the Labour party have been trying to play a political game rather than actually acting in the countries best interests - this idea of not helping your enemy etc has meant that both sides are so entrenched that it would be politically suicidal to reach out in any meaningful way.

 

I came to the conclusion that a 2nd referendum was almost inevitable after the first defeat of the Meaningful vote in January, mainly due to the scale of the defeat. If she had lost by less than 100 - you could see a way out by using the deadline as a means to pressure the Brexiteers and Labour MP's in Leave constituencies into supporting the deal. But because it was such a massive loss, it meant that she would only get one more go and the scale of the challenge was to big to overcome.

 

The EU are unwilling to negotiate any further on the Deal; the Attorney General will find it very difficult to change his advice to satisfy the DUP and ERG without further changes. Therefore the only realistic options in terms of amending the motion so it gets passed Bercow are the two I outlined above. A short extension is fine, but for what reason...if she can't change the deal, we end up back at square 1 and probably more likely to end up with No Deal. However MP's have already spotted that danger and I would suspect Labour would then attach the Kyle/Wilson amendment to the motion to force a 2nd ref on the deal.

 

A referendum on a Hard/Soft Brexit will not work because it again ignores the 48% from the original referendum. Even a No Deal v Remain is preferable because at least it reflects the split in the electorate.

 

There is no easy fix and I am quite prepared to be proved wrong, however it is important to remember every time you see Mogg, Johnson, and the rest of the ERG bleating on TV about the loss of Brexit, it was their choice to vote against the only deal on the table.

 

 

Don't matter how small the majority is, a majority always win. to have a 2nd vote would be the start of 2nd votes on every thing if a margin of less than 2 % won...

 

 

Unless you are saying if remain goes and wins by 2 % its final and no 3rd vote can happen and so on and so on and so on? it would make us a laughing stock of the world. even Kim Jong-un will be rolling around laughing at us... lol

[Window Cleaner]

Don't matter how small the majority is, a majority always win. to have a 2nd vote would be the start of 2nd votes on every thing if a margin of less than 2 % won...

 

 

Unless you are saying if remain goes and wins by 2 % its final and no 3rd vote can happen and so on and so on and so on? it would make us a laughing stock of the world. even Kim Jong-un will be rolling around laughing at us... lol

 

Ah the wonders of the "do-over" generation. The UK needs to respect the result of the referendum and that should be final.

[Mosin]

Ah the wonders of the "do-over" generation. The UK needs to respect the result of the referendum and that should be final.

 

exactly, no two ways about it, if I vote on any thing even some thing as stupid as a film, I will always want the majority to win, the moment the minority start winning is when the 50 % of the worlds wealth ( So 1 % of the worlds population ) will get what they want.

[aintforever]

Ah the wonders of the "do-over" generation. The UK needs to respect the result of the referendum and that should be final.

 

I agree in principle but in reality it was never clear what was being voted for, now it is much clearer so the common sense thing to do, if we are to make the right descision, is to vote again.

 

Problem is everything has got so polarised and you have two groups of nob heads desperate to win their argument at any cost, common sense doesn’t get a look in.

[Batman]

I agree in principle but in reality it was never clear what was being voted for, now it is much clearer so the common sense thing to do, if we are to make the right descision, is to vote again.

 

Problem is everything has got so polarised and you have two groups of nob heads desperate to win their argument at any cost, common sense doesn’t get a look in.

And this will hit a level we cant comprehend in the event of another vote

[Unbelievable Jeff]

exactly, no two ways about it, if I vote on any thing even some thing as stupid as a film, I will always want the majority to win, the moment the minority start winning is when the 50 % of the worlds wealth ( So 1 % of the worlds population ) will get what they want.

 

I agree to a certain extent.

 

However, why would a new vote, in which we have more information to base it on, be undemocratic? It is gauging the will of the people at the time it is due to be implemented, not 3 years ahead of that time.

 

How would you feel if you were voting in a general election, 3 years ahead of the time they came into power, yet 3 years down the line the party that had substantially changed, new leader, new policies etc. You'd want a new vote - which is sensible, surely, as it's not what you voted for in the first place.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

And this will hit a level we cant comprehend in the event of another vote

 

In what way?

[Batman]

In what way?

 

both sides will go beyond ridiculous.

to claim otherwise after the last vote and the behaviour of both sides since then, good luck to you (them)

[Batman]

I agree to a certain extent.

 

However, why would a new vote, in which we have more information to base it on, be undemocratic? It is gauging the will of the people at the time it is due to be implemented, not 3 years ahead of that time.

 

How would you feel if you were voting in a general election, 3 years ahead of the time they came into power, yet 3 years down the line the party that had substantially changed, new leader, new policies etc. You'd want a new vote - which is sensible, surely, as it's not what you voted for in the first place.

because it hasnt happened. That is the difference.

You can vote out a government after they have, err, been a government

 

for every scary forecast (and it is just a forecast) that is put out there, a complete opposite stance is provided.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

both sides will go beyond ridiculous.

to claim otherwise after the last vote and the behaviour of both sides since then, good luck to you (them)

 

I don't know what you mean by that, go beyond ridiculous in what way?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

because it hasnt happened. That is the difference.

You can vote out a government after they have, err, been a government

 

for every scary forecast (and it is just a forecast) that is put out there, a complete opposite stance is provided.

 

Because what hasn't happened? In theory, we should be about to implement a deal. What is undemocratic about voting for or against that deal?

[Batman]

I don't know what you mean by that, go beyond ridiculous in what way?

 

if you dont know what I mean, I cant be bothered to explain or pass through the door you are opening.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

if you dont know what I mean, I cant be bothered to explain or pass through the door you are opening.

 

I genuinely, hand on heart, don't know what you're alluding to. Just give me an example.

[Batman]

Because what hasn't happened? In theory, we should be about to implement a deal. What is undemocratic about voting for or against that deal?

 

why have a vote based on more utter horse-shyt from both sides.

but then, you probably cant see that and believe remain side tell the truth (which is really has not) and the leave side are hysterical fibbers

 

All sides have been and continue to be an utter mess. Having another vote is not going to stop that

[Unbelievable Jeff]

why have a vote based on more utter horse-shyt from both sides.

but then, you probably cant see that and believe remain side tell the truth (which is really has not) and the leave side are hysterical fibbers

 

All sides have been and continue to be an utter mess. Having another vote is not going to stop that

 

Don't make assumptions on what I think, I have never defended the Remain campaign.

 

Tell me what is undemocratic about having a vote on the deal.

Edited 19 March, 2019 by Unbelievable Jeff

[aintforever]

why have a vote based on more utter horse-shyt from both sides.

but then, you probably cant see that and believe remain side tell the truth (which is really has not) and the leave side are hysterical fibbers

 

All sides have been and continue to be an utter mess. Having another vote is not going to stop that

 

You have to agree that a refurendum now would be a more informed descision?

 

By far the most important thing we know now that we didn’t back then was what a useless bunch of ****s the Conservatives are at negotiating a deal. The EU have played hardball, there has been no banging on doors by German car manufacturers - it’s no deal or a sh!t deal. We had no idea of that first time around. Plus there is a whole load of other stuff that we’re not really seriously considered, like The Northern Ireland border problem.

[Mosin]

I agree to a certain extent.

 

However, why would a new vote, in which we have more information to base it on, be undemocratic? It is gauging the will of the people at the time it is due to be implemented, not 3 years ahead of that time.

 

How would you feel if you were voting in a general election, 3 years ahead of the time they came into power, yet 3 years down the line the party that had substantially changed, new leader, new policies etc. You'd want a new vote - which is sensible, surely, as it's not what you voted for in the first place.

 

Cause they lie in every single election I have ever known, promising things that will never make it through commons and yet i still have to put up with them. why would this be any different? I wanted us to leave the day the vote had finished being counted just like a normal election would, i still want us to leave, nothing has changed.

[Mosin]

Because what hasn't happened? In theory, we should be about to implement a deal. What is undemocratic about voting for or against that deal?

 

But the vote was not on getting a deal or not, it was on remaining or leaving the EU, we had only two options.

 

Was a simple yes or no question, it was not a leave - if leave what deal? deal 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 or no deal?...……

 

if remain- we will just remain and be sheep following the EU's none publicly elected rulers.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

But the vote was not on getting a deal or not, it was on remaining or leaving the EU, we had only two options.

 

Was a simple yes or no question, it was not a leave - if leave what deal? deal 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 or no deal?...……

 

if remain- we will just remain and be sheep following the EU's none publicly elected rulers.

 

So what leave did you vote for? You can say "I voted leave", but others may have voted leave and have a completely different definition of leave to you, I think that's fair to say?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Cause they lie in every single election I have ever known, promising things that will never make it through commons and yet i still have to put up with them. why would this be any different? I wanted us to leave the day the vote had finished being counted just like a normal election would, i still want us to leave, nothing has changed.

 

But it's not just about you - that's fair enough if you still see yourself as a leave voter - but what about those leave voters who have now changed their mind after learning what that leave vote meant? Aren't we in a better situation now with what we do and don't know about what leaving the EU means?

 

So how is having a second vote undemocratic?

[hypochondriac]

I agree with cb fry. Mays deal is going to go through next week at the very last minute. It's quite shocking really considering how little support there is for it but MPs realise that they can then say they respected the will of the people. Spineless bastards.

[Mosin]

But it's not just about you - that's fair enough if you still see yourself as a leave voter - but what about those leave voters who have now changed their mind after learning what that leave vote meant? Aren't we in a better situation now with what we do and don't know about what leaving the EU means?

 

So how is having a second vote undemocratic?

 

Just cause people change their minds does not change any thing, i cant elect a leader and kick him out after 3 years and undo every thing they did can i? just caused i changed my mind 3 years later??? and decided to vote for Boris in stead..... No, so why should any one else ever period, you are right its not about me, so those people that have changed their minds its now all about them now? how is that fair in an all is equal world??? they had a choice, they made one, now they are unhappy they want it changed even though they know voting is final as has always been the case in the UK? WHAT serious. dam can we go back and re-elect some one other than Thatcher please. god i hated her and my dad always said he would have voted different if he knew what she was going to do.....

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Just cause people change their minds does not change any thing, i cant elect a leader and kick him out after 3 years and undo every thing they did can i? just caused i changed my mind 3 years later??? and decided to vote for Boris in stead..... No, so why should any one else ever period, you are right its not about me, so those people that have changed their minds its now all about them now? how is that fair in an all is equal world??? they had a choice, they made one, now they are unhappy they want it changed even though they know voting is final as has always been the case in the UK? WHAT serious. dam can we go back and re-elect some one other than Thatcher please. god i hated her and my dad always said he would have voted different if he knew what she was going to do.....

 

I don't think you're understanding my point in relation to the election. What I am saying is you vote today, but the party you vote for don't come to power for 3 years, and by then they've changed their policy and leader. It's why you don't vote ahead of time.

 

No, it's not all about those that have changed their minds - it's about everyone who did and didn't vote at the time, and the fact that with more information people can make a more informed decision. It's different to an election as it was voted for 3 years before implementation. How is that not the right thing to do?

[Sheaf Saint]

This has aged well hasn't it...

 

[trousers]

This has aged well hasn't it...

 

 

Given that she believes the deal she has struck is 'good' rather than 'bad', I guess she could argue there's nothing contradictory in that article? i.e. in her eyes, there's no bad deal to be walking away from...?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I'm guessing no-one can explain why a further vote is undemocratic, even though they refer to a further vote as undemocratic.

[Sheaf Saint]

Given that she believes the deal she has struck is 'good' rather than 'bad', I guess she could argue there's nothing contradictory in that article? i.e. in her eyes, there's no bad deal to be walking away from...?

 

Well then she would appear to be about the only person in Britain who thinks it's a good deal.

[Verbal]

Well then she would appear to be about the only person in Britain who thinks it's a good deal.

 

Not her either. Even she thinks it's a bad deal because she can't shake the backstop off.

 

There are few heroes in all this. One though is Yvette Cooper, who's used parliamentary procedure to outwit MAY repeatedly - the last time ambushing her by picking up the Spelman amendment. Her successes reflect the fact, which May has pointlessly tried to ignore, that parliament, not the government, is in control (governments only usually appear to be in control because they command parliamentary majorities).

 

All of which points to one of two conclusions: either May HAS to go to an election or a second referendum vote to break the parliamentary jam; or she accepts that parliament must henceforth take the lead. That means, ultimately, a much softer Brexit.

[ashnats]

I feel sorry for Scotland, what did they do to deserve this. I'm sure they would much rather be a part of the EU than the UK. Maybe that will be an eventual consequence, once we have the tech for soft borders, which will be fast-tracked, there will be nothing to stop them, and it may well end up a straightforward decision for the Scottish people.

[egg]

I'm guessing no-one can explain why a further vote is undemocratic, even though they refer to a further vote as undemocratic.

 

Because democracy does not involve keep asking for an answer to the same question until you get your preferred answer.

[doddisalegend]

Because democracy does not involve keep asking for an answer to the same question until you get your preferred answer.

Except it does that's what general elections are for the chance for to change your mind every few years. It's not like you only get one vote on your government in a life time.

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Because democracy does not involve keep asking for an answer to the same question until you get your preferred answer.

 

Surely democracy is about taking the wishes of the nation at a point in time. 3 years ago, with the information available, we wanted to leave. Now we are getting to implement that, with more information,, surely it's democratic to ask whether or not what is being proposed is what is wanted now? Surely that is the definition of democratic?

[moonraker]

Because democracy does not involve keep asking for an answer to the same question until you get your preferred answer.

 

What like May and her Deal Votes, I am sorry but that is exactly what democracy is, always reviewing and ensuring that the right things are being done, when our knowledge and understanding of something changes our answers and solutions change.

[Sheaf Saint]

Because democracy does not involve keep asking for an answer to the same question until you get your preferred answer.

 

Maybe you should explain that to the MPs complaining that they can't have a third chance to vote for May's awful deal.

 

Anyway, it's not about keeping on asking until you get the 'right' answer. It's about having a further vote now that there is so much more information available that wasn't even discussed in the run-up to the referendum. I don't recall a single mention of the Irish border problem by either campaign, and yet it is now the biggest single obstacle to Brexit.

 

People were told that we hold all the cards, that negotiating our exit would be the easiest deal in history, that there were no considerable downsides to Brexit, and that it would only lead to sunlit uplands. Now that it has been demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt how misleading all this was, the British public should absolutely be given the opportunity to go to the polls again before we commit ourselves to the biggest (potentially disastrous) constitutional change in the modern history of this country that will have repercussions for generations to come.

 

If those who voted leave are so certain that the original referendum result was fair, above board and the correct result, then there is no good reason I can see why they would oppose having another one now that we have so many more facts available to us. To claim it is 'undemocratic' is erroneous, and IMO is just a simple get-out to avoid having to properly justify opposition to the idea without admitting that they are terrified Remain might win this time.

[egg]

Maybe you should explain that to the MPs complaining that they can't have a third chance to vote for May's awful deal.

 

Anyway, it's not about keeping on asking until you get the 'right' answer. It's about having a further vote now that there is so much more information available that wasn't even discussed in the run-up to the referendum. I don't recall a single mention of the Irish border problem by either campaign, and yet it is now the biggest single obstacle to Brexit.

 

People were told that we hold all the cards, that negotiating our exit would be the easiest deal in history, that there were no considerable downsides to Brexit, and that it would only lead to sunlit uplands. Now that it has been demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt how misleading all this was, the British public should absolutely be given the opportunity to go to the polls again before we commit ourselves to the biggest (potentially disastrous) constitutional change in the modern history of this country that will have repercussions for generations to come.

 

If those who voted leave are so certain that the original referendum result was fair, above board and the correct result, then there is no good reason I can see why they would oppose having another one now that we have so many more facts available to us. To claim it is 'undemocratic' is erroneous, and IMO is just a simple get-out to avoid having to properly justify opposition to the idea without admitting that they are terrified Remain might win this time.

 

Forgive me, that's the vote that I was referring to. I agree with Bercow on that. She's asked twice, lost twice, and it's be undemocratic to keep bashing away by asking the same question imo.

 

In terms of another referendum/peoples vote, I was a leave man and confess that I didn't foresee these issues re backstop etc and I assumed that my vote would mean leaving with the a deal that meant a seamless continuation of trade. That's not where we are at and Mays deal may mean that happens down the line but as of now it doesn't. It locks us into a pseudo EU vacuum and means we negotiate our future EU trade deal from a position of weakness. Whether we leave with that deal, no deal (with clear cross party information about what precisely that means re trade, movement, law, NI, etc) or we remain should absolutely be determined by the people - that is democratic.