Second Brexit Referendum, why we need it!

It’s quite clear to me what happened

Just like the op says with the Lisbon treaty

The globalists have most of the positions of power, especially in the media

They allowed a referendum because they assumed with the media and establishment in their pocket, they could fear monger people into remaining

They did not count on the actual people having a voice, and voting against a globalist undemocratic system that put the reigns of power in Brussels, away from their actual politicians they vote for

So the globalist lost

No problem they still had the media and politicians of power, and so they demonized the vote

It was misleading, people didn’t understand, etc

And they drug their feet making it seem like it’s impossible to leave

Now they will want another vote

Just like libson

Imagine suggesting a second cite on any other referendum like this

Say gay marriage

“Yes we know the people voted to allow gay marriage, but three years later a bunch of us politicians that were against it can’t figure out how to do it. So can we vote again until we get our way?”

a reply to: Grambler

Globalism is why we have all this pollution. Peeps wanting cantaloupes in January ffs.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I voted remain.

Originally.

If there was (and I hope not) another referendum, I'd actually vote to leave now. And I know the vast majority of my friends and colleagues feel the same.

Why?

Because the EU has really shown their true colours during these 'negotiations'. There's been alot of bully-boy tactics, particularly in the earlier stages. And Juncker's more recent comments of "There can't be any more negotiating" just proves to me that aborting any Brexit (for the record, I HATE that expression) or appeasing the EU in any way would actually be worse than a no deal Brexit.

I can't support that with figures. Just call it a hunch. Sure, not the best way to run a country, but then that's why I'm not PM.

I'm not saying we're saints either. But I now feel we'd be far better off calling it quits, ending the relationship, and just remaining (pardon the pun) friends.

I respect everyone's opinion. No one is right. But what I did respect was the vote and the result, even though it went against me.

I also think the pundits and politicians are wrong. I don't think a second vote would show a major slide to remain.

There's my 2p's worth.

Plus I won £100 on the result based on a hunch 😁

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin


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.

In my view the ^^^^two^^^^ are the same question

Where does LEAVE come into it? The majority have already voted LEAVE.

The question was LEAVE OR REMAIN in the EU .... there never was a mention of a DEAL

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin


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.

In my view the ^^^^two^^^^ are the same question

Where does LEAVE come into it? The majority have already voted LEAVE.

The question was LEAVE OR REMAIN in the EU .... there never was a mention of a DEAL

I think when people talk about a deal what they mean is that there were lots of promises about how the UK would look after Brexit and none of them are coming true.

We were sold Brexit on the back of lies.

Link

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin


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.

In my view the ^^^^two^^^^ are the same question

Where does LEAVE come into it? The majority have already voted LEAVE.

The question was LEAVE OR REMAIN in the EU .... there never was a mention of a DEAL

I think when people talk about a deal what they mean is that there were lots of promises about how the UK would look after Brexit and none of them are coming true.

We were sold Brexit on the back of lies.

Link

What lies? I never wanted us in the European Common Market as it was in the '70's even though I was too young to vote. My father and mother both voted for us to go in. I disagreed with them. Shortly before his death 25 years ago, my dad said we should never have joined. Two years ago I had the opportunity to vote. I voted LEAVE. I did not need to listen to all the pre-vote pro and con arguments, I have lived through it and never once since the '70's have I changed my mind. So please stop saying broad sweeping statements as though you are speaking for the whole population...with respect.

I think people in Britain are fed up with Brexit. I don't think they see it in the same way that they saw the Blitz, as something they had to slog through, no matter what, as a matter of paramount existential importance.

If Theresa May is not able to get her "deal" passed by Parliament, I think she will have to avoid a no deal Brexit by withdrawing Article 50, thus letting the whole issue die, as a practical matter.

I don't think anyone will be able to do better than her, as Conservative leader. I don't know whether Corbyn would be successful attempting a vote of no confidence in the government. It's possible that May would actually win that vote too. Corbyn is definitely made of inferior stuff. He's a poser, a hollow man.

I think Brexit's day is done. I don't believe in the "majority" for Brexit, for reasons outlined by the OP.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Brexit 2.0: become annexed by the US because only Trump can solve this crisis. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then France and shortly after, the rest of Europe and the world follow suite, officially "surrendering" to President Trump and the United States.

Another reason for a second referendum, although it is probably stated as support for a no confidence vote followed by a general election followed by a 'people's vote". (A highly unlikely sequence of events, I think.)

www.theguardian.com... n-may-in-confidence-vote-than-brexiters-claims-rees-mogg-politics-live

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, told MPs in his speech in the Brexit debate that he did not think Theresa May would ever authorise a no-deal Brexit. He explained:

Talking of no deal has always been misguided and, in my view, deeply irresponsible.

Treasury estimates of a no deal outcome would be a 9.3% decline in GDP over 15 years. It would see every region of the UK worse off. It would mean 20% tariffs on agrifoods, and significant tariffs on manufactured goods. It would also mean no common security arrangements in place and a hard border in Northern Ireland. It would be catastrophic for the UK. That’s why no deal has never truly been a viable option. It is a political hoax, and deep down, deep down, I think the government, and this prime minister, knows it.

The clock is ticking on all this. If May can't get her deal passed in Parliament, she has only two reasonable options, withdrawing Article 50 or having another referendum. If another referendum results in another victory for Brexit, something I think would be very unlikely, then Parliament will pass May's deal even if they have to lock Rees-Mogg, Boris Johnson and others into closets to do it.

The alternative is a no deal Brexit and a period, probably ten to fifteen years of reinventing the economy of the UK, at great cost.