Gisambards wrote:I actually think a no-deal Brexit is incredibly unlikely. It's likely that Theresa May will get the mandate to go back and renegotiate something, and actually if a no deal Brexit does become the only option then I think popular support for a second referendum will be high enough that one will happen
Marcuse wrote:I dislike the concept that we need to vote again on the issue when really nothing has changed. At the time May invoked article 50 we had no deal and no concrete idea of our future relationship with the EU. As of right now we have no deal and no concrete idea of our future relationship with the EU.
A second in/out vote wouldn't do anything to answer those questions
and would merely allow the remain side to play on the decision fatigue people have because of how poorly the government has handled the situation as a reason people should vote to remain: to make the annoying perennial story go away.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense at all. The deal obviously did not exist before it had been negotiated. The fact that the negotiations have now taken place and there is still no deal is actually a major development and does change the circumstances greatly. In the former there was the expectation of a deal, and in the latter there is the knowledge that there is very likely not going to be one.
It would answer the very pertinent question of whether people want to go through with it now that the practicalities are known.
Surely if the likelihood of politicians using silly populist arguments to unfairly win a referendum is an argument for not having a second one, then it's just as good an argument for ignoring the result of the first one, where we know that sort of thing went on?
Marcuse wrote:I don't recall this being a feature of the referendum, how we left only became a public issue following the vote. Why would the possibility or expectation of a deal be relevant to the referendum before it had become established that Leave won? In most circles, including the Leave camp, believed Remain would win, so how was the Leave vote meaningfully informed by an "expectation of a deal"?
What about the initial referendum was insufficient?
Marcuse wrote:There's a difference between a silly populist argument and an argument which bears no relation to the facts of the issue.
IamNotCreepy wrote:People voted for Brexit on the naïve assumption that there would be a good deal worked out by the British government that would be agreed on and approved. It's becoming clear that such a deal is not going to happen, and people are reevaluating their positions in light of new information.
gisambards wrote:I think referenda are a perfectly sensible component of a democracy, although they really shouldn't be considered binding if they pass with such a small margin (although this referendum was only ever advisory anyway, something the Brexiteers do willfully ignore).
A Combustible Lemon wrote:Death is an archaic concept for simpleminded commonfolk, not Victorian scientist whales.
CarrieVS wrote:I wouldn't support my preferred party managing to declare it invalid on a technicality to get a second bite at the apple.
gisambards wrote:a campaign rooted in what they admitted after winning was misinformation (and a campaign that also committed finance violations).
A Combustible Lemon wrote:Death is an archaic concept for simpleminded commonfolk, not Victorian scientist whales.
CarrieVS wrote:Didn't both sides have irregularities? Not that two wrongs make a right but...
And she also made clear that she wants to stay on in Number 10 after the first phase of Brexit finishes, despite having promised her MPs she would not fight the next election.
She said her job "is not just about delivering Brexit" and "there is still a domestic agenda that I want to get on with."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests