It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Second Brexit Referendum, why we need it!

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Second Brexit Referendum, why we need it!


So, this is a controversial subject to be sure that has been raised in several threads on the subject of Brexit in recent weeks. Not only that but its gaining lots of traction in the media and in parliament, the so-called “Peoples Vote”. The line of the government remains that this will not happen however with parliament now essentially at grid-lock I wanted to write this thread to explain why a second Brexit referendum is required.

To be clear on a few things before I get into this. Firstly, the core of my argument is that no-deal is disastrous for the UK and that in the face of such a scenario the people must be given their say. This will be explained further but because of the enormity of this subject on some points I am deliberately going to skim over so that this thread is not so long it becomes unreadable. Lastly let me say that I know the core arguments against a second referendum mainly of it being undemocratic the old question of “how many referendums do you want?”, again I will address these points.

Referendum 1.0


So, before we get into the crux of why I believe we need a second referendum let’s look at the first referendum because there are some problems with that that have to be acknowledged in any argument for a second referendum. The first issue that I have is that nobody really knew what they were voting for. It was a vote leave or vote remain question but with out any say over what the UK would look like in the event of voting to leave. There were no options to stay in the single market for example. Nobody back in 2016 knew what Brexit would actually look like all we knew was that if leave won then the UK government would negotiate some kind of deal with the EU to facilitate the divorce.

Since then however it has also transpired that vote leave where using some very unsavoury tactics to bring about their win. According to one Oxford Professor speaking at the high court:



It is “very likely” that the UK voted for Brexit because of illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an Oxford professor’s evidence to the High Court.

An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy concludes it reached “tens of millions of people” in its last crucial days, after its spending limit had been breached – enough to change the outcome.


So, given that they were lying about that then its unsurprising that the electoral commission refereed vote leave to the police for campaign finance violations. Also without wanting to drag this thread into a off-topic debate but there is a massive growing mound of evidence that shows the Russian government was deliberately involved in attempting to support vote leave.



Remember we are talking about a difference of 1.7%. Now only where vote leave breaching spending rules and being supported by the Russians but they were flat out lying to the electorate. For example, what ever happened to the £350 million extra a week for the NHS, that was lie. They even lied about straight banana’s!

The point then that I am trying to make hear is quite simple, to those who argue that it would be undemocratic to hold a second referendum the first referendum wasn’t actually all that democratic anyway. Vote Leave lied to the people, they overspent, and it seems were being supported but the Russian government. Not only that but the referendum was never legally binding it was merely an advisory vote. Again, this is a very brief over view of this topic if anyone is interested, I would encourage them to read more around Aron Banks.




posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 08:38 AM
link   
No-Deal Disaster.

So, I just want to very quickly go over what no deal would mean at this point. Vote leave won regardless of how they done it. Throughout the Brexit campaign we heard about project fear, well project fear is now the reality. Let’s say we are hit with a no deal Brexit, we just rip of the band-aid what would the consequences be:

Kent 'facing gridlocked and rubbish-strewn streets under no-deal Brexit'


A no-deal Brexit could cause major disruption across Kent, with gridlock on the roads around Dover, rubbish not being collected, children unable to take exams and rubbish piling up on streets, a local council report has warned.

The registration service for weddings could also be affected and bodies could pile up in morgues because of traffic gridlock, Kent county council warned in an update on no-deal contingency planning. Problems would all flow from the congestion and new regulatory barriers that would be in place if Britain crashed out of the EU on 29 March.


Full Report

No-deal Brexit could result in blackouts in the North, leaked documents reveal



Northern Ireland faces blackouts and drastic electricity price rises in the event of a no-deal Brexit, leaked British government documents reveal.

The North would likely be cut off from electricity supplies from the Republic and unable to use its sole electricity link to Britain, according to an internal briefing.


Health sector warned of 6-month medicine shortages in no-deal




The UK government has warned drug companies and the health service to prepare for up to six months of “significantly reduced access” at UK borders in the event of a no-deal Brexit.


Brexit provides the perfect ingredients for a national food crisi



Last week, in evidence to the Brexit select committee, Raab announced that the government would be working to secure “adequate food supplies” in the event of a no-deal Brexit, which could impede the free flow across our borders of the 30% of our food currently imported from the EU. No, the government itself would not be stockpiling food. Quite right. It doesn’t have a way of doing so


A No-Deal Brexit Will Destroy the British Economy

Bank warns no-deal could see UK sink into recession



A no-deal Brexit could send the pound plunging and trigger a worse recession than the financial crisis, the Bank of England has warned.

It said the UK economy could shrink by 8% in the immediate aftermath if there was no transition period, while house prices could fall by almost a third.

The Bank of England also warned the pound could fall by a quarter.




Now honestly could go on all day with sources and links but the point is quite clear, a no deal Brexit would be a total disaster for the UK, I can see absolutely no benefit of a no deal that would be of benefit to the UK in the face of these dire consequences. This remember is just a small selection, we haven’t even started on the Irish boader, threat to the union, security, impact on air lines the list really does go on. These consequences are of benefit to nobody, remained or leaver, so the question then has to be what options do we have to avoid this.

So,



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 08:39 AM
link   
So,

What options do we have?

So honestly, our options are really limited.

The one that the government are in favour of is Mays Brexit deal however if yesterday is anything to go by by then that’s not going to happen. It was so bad that in an unprecedented move she has cancelled the vote on it. However, the EU have said that the negotiation is done, and this is the best and only deal that the UK is going to get. The EU does not want to give the UK a good deal, sure it might hurt the EU a little for the UK to crash out with no-deal. The point though for the EU is that if they give the UK an easy exist then it starts to open up leaving the EU as an attractive possibility for other EU member states. The EU don’t want to make this easy for us and nor should they. So, May’s deal just isn’t going to pass, its not going to get any better so what next.

Right what about getting rid of May then? All this would take is for 48 Tories to submit letters to the chairman of the 1922 committee which in turn would trigger a leadership contest in the Conservative party. The leader of the ruling party in the UK is the PM, her own party can kick our out of that leadership role and appoint and new leader and as such a new PM. There is a but….they can only do it once a year so timing is everything. Additionally, it wouldn’t change a thing with Brexit, all it would do is cause more instability, the government would be too busy fighting themselves to focus on the crisis at hand. So that’s also out.

OK then a general election….well again that’s not likely for a few reasons. The fixed term Parliaments act of 2011 basically says that to trigger a general election there must be at the very least a two thirds majority vote in the commons to trigger the election otherwise it is held every 5 years. That means its highly likely to pass as many MPs know that they would be putting their jobs at risk. It would also cause the same problems for Brexit in so much as it would create even more instability.

Which brings us on to the real problem, we are at grid-lock, May can’t get her deal through and its unlikely that the EU are going to make changes sufficient to squeeze it through parliament. She can’t quit because that wouldn’t change anything, and a general election is a bit of a non-starter. The queen could potentially intervene but that would be totally unheard of in modern politics and its highly unlikely as she tends to stay out of these matters.

There is however one possible solution.

A Second Referendum.

So now we get to the really controversial point, Brexit referendum 2.0 and its not a nice topic to discuss. Those who are against it make a few arguments; they say it is undemocratic, they say it undermines trust in government and they ask the legitimate question of what do you do if they still vote leave, have more referendums?

Well it’s not undemocratic, Ireland have done just this in the past they held a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty. There have been calls for a second referendum on Scottish independence pretty much since the day after the 2014 vote. A referendum is by its very nature the democratic way of doing things. Brexit passed with a margin of 1.7%, the numbers are actually really interesting, those under the age of 50 voted mostly against with over 70% of under 25’s voting remain. They are the people who will have the live with the long-term consequences of Brexit. Also, when you look at it on a national scale Scotland, Northern Ireland and London all voted to remain. My point is that we need to remember than 16 million people who voted to remain are being largely ignored Brexit is not and never has been a popular choice for much of the country.

And that number is growing, there has been a change in public opinion regarding Brexit that has shown that as the real consequences become more and more apparent so to dose the desire to reverse the vote. Indeed, at the time some vote-leave voters voted as a protest vote rather than to actually leave. The British Election Study surveyed almost 28,000 voters and found that 11% of leave voters regretted their decision. The independent recently also reported that:


More voters than ever before think the decision to leave the EU was a mistake, a new poll has found.
Just 38 per cent of people believe the UK was right to vote for Brexit, while almost half (49 per cent) think it was the wrong decision.


This is repeated in other polling data that in general there is an increasing swing in the public’s view on Brexit towards it being the wrong decision. For example, WhatUKThinks polling data shows that now 47% of Brits would vote to remain vs only 41% who would vote to leave. When you take Mays plan into account the numbers get even more interesting with the Brexit vote being split. Only 27% support leaving without a deal, 27% supporting the governments deal and 46% voting to remain in the EU. To be clear then, the most likely situation right now is no-deal Brexit and data shows only 27% of the country support that other sources point to 28% approval.

The country does not want a no-deal Brexit, it would therefore be undemocratic to deny the people a second vote, a people vote, a vote that basically says “no-deal” or “no-Breixt” and that’s all it would take just one vote, not several the way some hard-line Brexit supporters like to ask about. It would only take one vote to confirm the views of the people at this critical juncture in our country’s history.

The good news is that yesterday the EU did revoke that the UK could revoke article 50 and have things go back to before the Brexit vote with out having to make any concessions or consult other EU members states. The bad news is that time is running out for a second referendum and would require emergency legislation being passed by the government to enable the vote to happen quickly before March 29.



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 08:39 AM
link   
End Game

So I wanted this to be a short thread but am looking at the word count at the bottom of the page and its already over 2000, the truth is that there are lot more reasons as to why a no-deal Brexit is a bad idea and why we as a country deserve a second vote on this matter. Our government is at grid-lock, the deal May has proposed will not be changed, it’s a bad deal for the country it won’t get through parliament in any form even if the EU do let her tweak it a little. That leaves us two options “No-Dea” or “No-Brexit” and I think we should have the people of the UK vote on that because our politicians have proven to be totally impotent.

EDIT: Just wanted to add this, I have deliberately not put this in the mud-pit because I don't want that kind of debate on this point. I totally get that some people will disagree with the the proposal for a second referendum and have good reasons for doing so all I ask is that you present these reasons and if you an back up your opinions with interesting links. I am on a day off and could use some interesting reading material. Thanks guys!
edit on 11-12-2018 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   
So, if you guys manage to repeal Brexit, does that mean the Brexit side then gets another vote? Best out of 3? OR, will the vote you win be the final vote?



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Thejoncrichton

Didn't read the OP?

Because I did address that point, I think it should be one final vote to confirm the views of the British people not several I think several votes would be bad for the country. I think that there should be one vote that is "no-deal" or "no-brexit". I would be happy to accept the results of that vote even if it means crashing out of the EU with no deal.
edit on 11-12-2018 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 08:51 AM
link   
leftists in Britain don't like the people's vote so they delay and try to redo.

leftists in the USA contest elections when they lose and refuse to concede and demand recounts.

leftists just can't seem to tolerate it when the public doesn't support them. instead of accepting the vox populi they insist that the voting / process was wrong.



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ElGoobero

In the uk its not really so much a leftist vs right issue.

Its a bit more complex than that, our politics is not so black and white.

Actually I don't think I once make mention of left or right politics n the OP.



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

What if people voted the same way as last time? What then?

No there will not be another referendum, and don’t worry about all that propaganda as there won’t be a Brexit either. The reason given to the public will be there are to many complications involved and it’s simply unworkable at this time. No mention of rubbish piling up in Kent will be given.

In fact I’m going to see if I can make a bet on a no Brexit at that at the bookies as I should have done ages ago. Easy money I reckon.



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Thejoncrichton

Didn't read the OP?

Because I did address that point, I think it should be one final vote to confirm the views of the British people not several I think several votes would be bad for the country.


You're advocating for several votes. Several votes good for you, bad for the other side?


I think that there should be one vote that is "no-deal" or "no-brexit". I would be happy to accept the results of that vote even if it means crashing out of the EU with no deal.


You had one vote. you lost. You guys are as bad as the leftists and media over here.




edit on 11-12-2018 by Thejoncrichton because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Thejoncrichton

No I am talking about a second vote.

Again I feel like you've not read the entire OP.

The point is that the UK government is now in a position where they are unable to deliver on a exit deal, they are at total grid-lock. In my view the best solution to this is a second vote now how exactly that second question should be asked I am unsure of although I think a simple "no-deal" vs "no-brexit" style of question would suffice.

I have not yet seen any evidence that suggests that a no-deal situation would be beneficial to the UK



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You really put a lot of effort into this thread, I liked it.
My only question would be why does it have to be a decision between only two things and not: remain, May's deal, or no deal?

On a side note today I saw there are actually people hording food for a no deal Brexit. That was funny to see. My opinion Swings with my mood, it will be horrible, it won't be that bad and it is never going to happen.

But you are totally right the people should decide what they want.



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 09:06 AM
link   
So a second vote is democratic because the first vote was undemocratic? Someone lied and Russia made more twitter posts than usual. Oh, and here’s some Remainer fear-mongering about a pending disaster.

Sir, not trying to be rude, but you do not know what democracy is.



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Peeple




My only question would be why does it have to be a decision between only two things and not: remain, May's deal, or no deal?


That is a really good question I was going to get into it in the OP but like I say it was getting really long.

So when you look at the data it seems like the Brexit vote in a three way question would be split, roughly half would vote to leave, 25% would go for no-deal and then 25% the governments deal. That splits the Brexit vote and those who support Brexit would undoubtably point out that this is unfair.

The solution to this could be to use a STV voting system which would be more complex but probably more fair.

I personally though think that Mays deal is just so bad it shouldn't even been considered but that is just a personal opinion.

So there is a way you could do it in the UK voting system but it would be highly unusual.



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf

I never said it was undemocratic only that it has since faced several problems and faced lots of accusations around its funding and campaign practices which undermined it democratic credentials. I am not ignoring the outcome of that vote.

It was only ever an advisory vote, it was never a legally binding vote, there was never any legal requirement for the government to adhere to the vote in the first place.

I fail to see how a second referendum would be undemocratic.
edit on 11-12-2018 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Oh *facepalm* my bad that's true I didn't think. You could prepare a vote that fast? That would be my next question. Or would it be possible to arrange a weekend of voting first day remain and leave next day how or so?

That's hyper democratic and nice if it would be possible. Is it possible?



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




The first issue that I have is that nobody really knew what they were voting for


I wish people such as you would stop spouting this bull#.

The Government sent a brochure to EVERY UK HOUSEHOLD explaining the consequences of The U.K. leaving The E.U.

If you didn't bother to read it then that's your problem.

Here it is.




Average real wages could be nearly 3% lower than if we remained in the EU, which would amount to a reduction of £800 a year for someone working full time on the average wage. Treasury analysis also shows that if the UK leaves the EU, after 15 years this could mean: a cost per year equivalent to £4,300 per household in the UK a hit to tax receipts of £36 billion a year this is the equivalent of an extra 8p on the basic rate of income tax Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because they want to keep access to our market. But the Government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that – less than 8% of EU exports come to the UK while 44% of UK exports go to the EU. No other country has managed to secure significant access to the Single Market, without having to: follow EU rules over which they have no real say pay into the EU accept EU citizens living and working in their country A more limited trade deal with the EU would give the UK less access to the Single Market than we have now – including for services, which make up almost 80% of the UK economy. For example, Canada’s deal with the EU will provide limited access for services like air travel, broadcasting and banking. The deal has been seven years in the making, and is still not in force. If the UK voted to leave the EU, we would lose access to trade agreements with more than 50 countries outside the EU. The UK would seek to renegotiate these deals, but this would take years and there is no guarantee that the UK would manage to negotiate terms as good as those we enjoy today. The UK would miss out on the benefits of the trade deals currently being negotiated by the EU, including with the US and Japan. When these are successfully concluded our exports to the EU, plus other countries covered by EU trade deals, would account for 82% of total UK exports.


webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk...://www.eureferendum.gov.uk/
edit on 11-12-2018 by alldaylong because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Propagandalf

I never said it was undemocratic only that it has since faced several problems and faced lots of accusations around its funding and campaign practices which undermined it democratic credentials. I am not ignoring the outcome of that vote.

It was only ever an advisory vote, it was never a legally binding vote, there was never any legal requirement for the government to adhere to the vote in the first place.

I fail to see how a second referendum would be undemocratic.


Ok, sorry, you said:

“The point then that I am trying to make hear is quite simple, to those who argue that it would be undemocratic to hold a second referendum the first referendum wasn’t actually all that democratic anyway.”

This was apparently because of overspending, someone lied, Russians posted about it on twitter, and it was never legally binding. All that has nothing to do with democracy, nor does it refute the argument that a second vote is to go against the will of the people, the principles of democracy.



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Peeple




You could prepare a vote that fast?


So this I why I say the government would need to pass some kind of emergency legislation.

Currently the law states that the people must be given at least 10 weeks notice of any referendum, a act also has to pass through both houses of parliament and that would take time. So we are looking at a ever tightening time frame in which the legislative mechanism for a second vote could be put through parliament.

I think they would need to take extraordinary measures to get such a vote passed and through.



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf

ok fair point.

I just don't quite get how this has anything to do with a second vote.

Like why would you be against it what is the reason behind that?



new topics




 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join