Would you change your vote ?

[buzyg]

Well that was a long old read. Best keep my thoughts on the matter to my self though.

[Smartbear]

Its clear many leavers have doubled down on their views since the referendum- partly, I'm sure, as a result of feeling insulted. That's a pity because we should hold the Brexiteer conmen in contempt and have compassion for those who were conned. Brexit has broken politics and split the nation (perhaps even precipitated the eventual break up of the UK) - a price worth paying to distance ourselves from the "enemy" who were really our friends all along?

Its easy to sneer at politicians and experts, people who spend their lives immersed in the detail and of course, as in any walk of life, there are good and bad eggs amongst them. I like this quote from Issac Asimov who saw the same thing happening in the USA

"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge"

I hope (and believe) that the younger generation will take us back in when they get the chance

It seems that you cannot accept any wrongdoing on the part of the remain camp after reading your post.
Both sides were at fault, do you not remember “project fear”?
Rob

I agree that both sides were guilty of "wrong doing" but 2 wrongs do not make a right do they? It seems to me that we have spent the last 40 years falsely blaming the EU for everything and encouraging people to think of them as our enemies so it was hardly surprising that so many voted to leave. Perhaps an even bigger factor than that was the very strong reaction to austerity that many people used the vote to voice? I also think its undeniable that people are now much more familiar with what Brexit in all its variants will mean. Having a second vote when that is agreed seems a sensible thing to do, remembering that in the first vote there was no common understanding of what leave actually meant. There should be no third go at this.

But there was a common understanding of what leave meant, did you not get your £9million pound taxpayer funded pamphlet?
You can’t keep asking people the same question, that’s nonsense & insulting to the camp that won.
Rob

[griffnut]

Totally agree.

Perhaps the next time we have a General Election and party A,B or C wins by a minimum vote of the total population, we as the electorate should have a Second or even a Third Vote until we can agree by the maximum vote of the entire population including all overseas citizens.

[Nictrix]

Maybe general elections should be done like a knock out competition.
The first round weeds out the ones with a small percentage of votes and whittle it down until there are two parties left.
Then everybody that votes has only two choices.

[Vornwend]

It seems that you cannot accept any wrongdoing on the part of the remain camp after reading your post.
Both sides were at fault, do you not remember “project fear”?
Rob

I agree that both sides were guilty of "wrong doing" but 2 wrongs do not make a right do they? It seems to me that we have spent the last 40 years falsely blaming the EU for everything and encouraging people to think of them as our enemies so it was hardly surprising that so many voted to leave. Perhaps an even bigger factor than that was the very strong reaction to austerity that many people used the vote to voice? I also think its undeniable that people are now much more familiar with what Brexit in all its variants will mean. Having a second vote when that is agreed seems a sensible thing to do, remembering that in the first vote there was no common understanding of what leave actually meant. There should be no third go at this.

But there was a common understanding of what leave meant, did you not get your £9million pound taxpayer funded pamphlet?
You can’t keep asking people the same question, that’s nonsense & insulting to the camp that won.
Rob

Its a shame you feel insulted by being given the chance to change your mind in the light of new information being presented and regard it as nonsensical. Of course a second vote would not be the same question - probably a variant of Remain/May's deal/No deal. Perhaps Parliament will even introduce further options this week - Norway, Common market 2.0 etc. There are no winners here. The damage being done to our country is the cost we will all have to live with. It seems fairly likely now that we will have a soft Brexit which will anger many on the leave side but is perhaps the best to be hoped for. I remain hopeful the younger generation will take us back in as full members one day. Better than us oldies, they understand we are better united than divided in this troubled and challenged world.

[mr wilks]

May to stand down & Gove to take over are they f~kin serious https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ister.html

It really couldn't get any more shambolic could it

[sp3ctre]

Another interesting way if thinking about it... if we were not in the EU and had a referendum to join, would we? Personally I highly doubt it

[Smartbear]

I agree that both sides were guilty of "wrong doing" but 2 wrongs do not make a right do they? It seems to me that we have spent the last 40 years falsely blaming the EU for everything and encouraging people to think of them as our enemies so it was hardly surprising that so many voted to leave. Perhaps an even bigger factor than that was the very strong reaction to austerity that many people used the vote to voice? I also think its undeniable that people are now much more familiar with what Brexit in all its variants will mean. Having a second vote when that is agreed seems a sensible thing to do, remembering that in the first vote there was no common understanding of what leave actually meant. There should be no third go at this.

But there was a common understanding of what leave meant, did you not get your £9million pound taxpayer funded pamphlet?
You can’t keep asking people the same question, that’s nonsense & insulting to the camp that won.
Rob

Its a shame you feel insulted by being given the chance to change your mind in the light of new information being presented and regard it as nonsensical. Of course a second vote would not be the same question - probably a variant of Remain/May's deal/No deal. Perhaps Parliament will even introduce further options this week - Norway, Common market 2.0 etc. There are no winners here. The damage being done to our country is the cost we will all have to live with. It seems fairly likely now that we will have a soft Brexit which will anger many on the leave side but is perhaps the best to be hoped for. I remain hopeful the younger generation will take us back in as full members one day. Better than us oldies, they understand we are better united than divided in this troubled and challenged world.

It’s not just myself, I should think there’s many people who would feel insulted at the thought of our democracy being trodden into the dirt.
Be honest with yourself, if the remain camp had won the referendum would you be campaigning for another vote if more information came to light?
I doubt it very much, there’s always going to be more details crawling from the woodwork after the event but it was supposed to be a once in a lifetime chance to have a vote.
It would be a tragedy if that was ignored imho
Rob

[jabber]

If there was another vote will it be legally binding or will it be only advisory?

Just incase they lost again!

[mr wilks]

How about a vote to remove all 650 MPs & offer their "jobs" to the public at say £40k a year sounds reasonable enough , we would be better off financially & it would be impossible to find 650 people who would be worse at the job so a positive move there too winwin for us the folks they have long forgotten about

[Smartbear]

How about a vote to remove all 650 MPs & offer their "jobs" to the public at say £40k a year sounds reasonable enough , we would be better off financially & it would be impossible to find 650 people who would be worse at the job so a positive move there too winwin for us the folks they have long forgotten about

^^^this^^^
Rob

[Vornwend]

But there was a common understanding of what leave meant, did you not get your £9million pound taxpayer funded pamphlet?
You can’t keep asking people the same question, that’s nonsense & insulting to the camp that won.
Rob

Its a shame you feel insulted by being given the chance to change your mind in the light of new information being presented and regard it as nonsensical. Of course a second vote would not be the same question - probably a variant of Remain/May's deal/No deal. Perhaps Parliament will even introduce further options this week - Norway, Common market 2.0 etc. There are no winners here. The damage being done to our country is the cost we will all have to live with. It seems fairly likely now that we will have a soft Brexit which will anger many on the leave side but is perhaps the best to be hoped for. I remain hopeful the younger generation will take us back in as full members one day. Better than us oldies, they understand we are better united than divided in this troubled and challenged world.

It’s not just myself, I should think there’s many people who would feel insulted at the thought of our democracy being trodden into the dirt.
Be honest with yourself, if the remain camp had won the referendum would you be campaigning for another vote if more information came to light?
I doubt it very much, there’s always going to be more details crawling from the woodwork after the event but it was supposed to be a once in a lifetime chance to have a vote.
It would be a tragedy if that was ignored imho
Rob

I doubt I would have but I expect leave would have - even Farage was arguing for that before he knew the result. I guess its a question of what would be the bigger tragedy?

[Vornwend]

This short piece by historian Robert Saunders might help explain (if not convince you) why some of us think the first referendum was deeply flawed and that comparisons with general elections are not valid. It makes good sense to me.

" The first big proponent of the referendum in Britain was A.V. Dicey, who argued for a "People's Veto". In this model, the referendum comes at the *end* of the legislative process. Parliament legislates as normal, then (for constitutional changes) voters act as a final check. In this model, parliamentary and plebisicitary democacy play different, but complementary roles. Parliament draws up, approves and takes responsibility for specific legislative proposals, in the usual way. The public can then block them if they do not have popular support. For an example of this model, see the recent Irish abortion referendum. After a consultative process, a fully actionable bill was passed through the Dáil. The public were then asked to accept or reject it - so it was crystal clear what a Yes or No vote would mean in practice.

2016, by contrast, followed a different model. It put the referendum at the *start* of the process, not the end. It asked voters to endorse an abstract question of principle ("Leave" or "Remain"), that MPs would then have to translate into law, not a specific policy proposal.Voters in 2016 were not asked to endorse *any* of the options currently under discussion: May's deal, No deal, EFTA, Canada... But ministers & journalists have invoked "the will of the people" to intimidate MPs into backing versions of Brexit that were never on the ballot.

So how do we fix this? The solution is not, I think, simply to repeat the exercise conducted in 2016 & hope for a different outcome. Instead, we should revert to something closer to the Diceyan model of a "People's Veto", which gives both Parliament & people an important role. It should be Parliament's job to debate the particular forms of Brexit, without being intimidated by clairvoyants pretending to know "what 17 million people voted for". Their conclusions can then be submitted to "a People's Veto", to confirm whether they have popular consent.That upholds the essential principle of representative government: that "the will of the people" (a cacophony of voices, not a single instruction) is expressed through dialogue between elected representatives, not by demagogues claiming a mystical connection with "the people". But it gives the electorate the right to check whether they did this correctly: a right we take for granted in the usual cycle of parliamentary elections. In this model, Parliament & people both play a role: and crucially, that role is collaborative, not competitive."

[Nictrix]

How long would that take?
In June it will be 3 years since the vote and they are still no further forward with how to actually go about it.
How long would it have taken for everything to be put in place to give a simple yes or no to whatever options that they finally put up.
It would probably never get to a vote.

[griffnut]

Thank goodness that they are not organising a party, else everyone would never turn up!