The Liberal Democrats Want To Stop Brexit. Can Someone Help Me With This.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: ScepticScot

But we have not left, have we?

Yes we are a whole 6 weeks behind schedule.

The tyranny...

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: ScepticScot

Why we should have another referendum to find out.

We had a referendum three years ago.
The only reasons it hasn't been enacted upon are the incompetence of our politicians and their pompous and arrogant belief that they know better than the great unwashed who dared to vote to leave, the refusal of Remainers to respect the result of a democratic vote and the bullying, uncompromising and dictatorial nature of the EU.

If the majority of people in the UK want us to leave the EU and collectively give up the benefits and costs that that membership gives then that is the democratic thing to do.

Then why didn't you respect the result of the referendum three years ago?
Why would it have been undemocratic to implement the result of that referendum?

Why would a second referendum have more validity than the first especially considering that ignoring the result of the first referendum immediately invalidates the whole process and democratic ethos surrounding referendums?

My issue is entirely the idea that we are locked into this decision based on a 3-year old vote.

Why are we 'locked into' decisions made two years ago in the last General Election?
Things have changed since then and I don't like the result of it so I think we should have another General Election.

If people had accepted the result of the referendum and then worked together to move this country forward in a positive manner we wouldn't be in the pathetic situation we are in today.

The process of leaving was always going to be protracted. As it stands we are less than 2 months past the planned date and will leave the EU.

We aren't locked to general elections (you may have noticed the Whig party isn't in power) and we have a general election on average every 4 years.

I do respect the the result of the referendum and the absence of another vote should leave. However unlike most brexit supporters I would also respect the result of a second referendum.

The claim that a second referendum is somehow undemocratic is absurd. If the majority want to leave we should leave. I might think its the wrong decision but it would be the democratic one.

However if the majority want to stay then the idea we have to leave because of a previous vote is ridiculous and undemocratic.

The repeated claims that it is remain supporters who are not respecting democracy when it is leave supported opposing a democratic referendum is so absurd to be funny.

The process of leaving was always going to be protracted. As it stands we are less than 2 months past the planned date and will leave the EU.

We aren't locked to general elections (you may have noticed the Whig party isn't in power) and we have a general election on average every 4 years.

I do respect the the result of the referendum and the absence of another vote should leave. However unlike most brexit supporters I would also respect the result of a second referendum.

The claim that a second referendum is somehow undemocratic is absurd. If the majority want to leave we should leave. I might think its the wrong decision but it would be the democratic one.

However if the majority want to stay then the idea we have to leave because of a previous vote is ridiculous and undemocratic.

The repeated claims that it is remain supporters who are not respecting democracy when it is leave supported opposing a democratic referendum is so absurd to be funny.

a reply to: Freeborn

Apologies my phone having a hissy fit about replying.

a reply to: ScepticScot

So, a vote to leave by a majority can be ignored and we should have another one in the hope that you get a vote to remain? That is what is absurd.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: ScepticScot

So, a vote to leave by a majority can be ignored and we should have another one in the hope that you get a vote to remain? That is what is absurd.

How is it being ignored? We are leaving.

If there is another vote to stay we should stay.

a reply to: ScepticScot

If we have another referendum then the original one will have been ignored. It's that simple.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: ScepticScot

If we have another referendum then the original one will have been ignored. It's that simple.

No. It will mean sufficient people have changed their mind.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Ignoring the result of a referendum and carrying out a second vote without implementing the result of the first simply undermines the principles behind referendums.

If a second referendum is held and there is a 52/48 vote in favour of Remaining the very fact that a second referendum has been held immediately validates claims for a third referendum.

Or would you simply ignore arguments for another referendum because you had got the result you wanted?

Where does it stop?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: ScepticScot

If we have another referendum then the original one will have been ignored. It's that simple.

No. It will mean sufficient people have changed their mind.

Your position is: Keep having referendums until you get a remain vote. which is undemocratic.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: ScepticScot

Ignoring the result of a referendum and carrying out a second vote without implementing the result of the first simply undermines the principles behind referendums.

If a second referendum is held and there is a 52/48 vote in favour of Remaining the very fact that a second referendum has been held immediately validates claims for a third referendum.

Or would you simply ignore arguments for another referendum because you had got the result you wanted?

Where does it stop?

The purpose of referendum is to see if people want to leave the EU. If that is no longer the case then we shouldn't leave.

That doesn't undermine the previous vote it just means people have changed their mind.

Farage said he would campaign for another referendum if the result was close ( using 52-48 as an example). Should the standard be different because you agree with the result?

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: ScepticScot

If we have another referendum then the original one will have been ignored. It's that simple.

No. It will mean sufficient people have changed their mind.

Your position is: Keep having referendums until you get a remain vote. which is undemocratic.

No it isn't. I have been quite specific about my position, so either you aren't reading or you are lying.

Which is it?

a reply to: ScepticScot

You don't want another referendum, then?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Of course it undermines the principles behind referendums.

Simply delay implementing the result of any future referendum as long as possible then hold another one without enacting the result of the first in the hope that one gets the 'desired' result.
It makes a mockery of holding referendums and renders them completely and utterly irrelevant.

Again, if any second referendum had a 52/48 vote for Remain would you support claims for third referendum?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: ScepticScot

You don't want another referendum, then?

Fairly obviously yes. As I said, already been made clear.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Do you also think we should have a General election if the ruling party slips behind in opinion polls? That would seem to follow from your logic.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: ScepticScot

Do you also think we should have a General election if the ruling party slips behind in opinion polls? That would seem to follow from your logic.

Not remotely the same thing.

The purpose of a referendum is to see what the majority of people think about a specific issue.

I also dont think we should have a referendum based just on option polls. But given 3 years have passed and polls do show a change of opinion then there is no valid reason against a second referendum.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: ScepticScot

So, a vote to leave by a majority can be ignored and we should have another one in the hope that you get a vote to remain? That is what is absurd.

Erm, a majority of whom? The total electorate of this benighted country is around 45 million people out of a total population of 66 million. We had a turnout of just 72% in 2016 on one of the most important issues we will ever be asked to vote on. 17 million voted to leave and 16 million voted to stay on a 52-48% split. When it was predicted that it would be a similar split for a remain victory that greasy fraud Farage said that there should be a second vote. I guess he changed his mind.
So a minority of the total electorate voted to leave. And being asked to vote on a "This is the real deal, this is what happens if we leave, do you want to confirm Y/N?" vote is somehow undemocratic?
We need to do what our Aussie friends do and make it against the law to not vote. That way you get genuine engagement on issues.
And by the way this was never an easy concept. Leaving the EU after 40 years means unpicking a huge amount of law and trading standards, plus I have not once, NOT ONCE, heard a sane solution to the Northern Irish border issue from Farage, or Rees-Mogg, or Bowis, or any leading Leaver of any way shape or form.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: ScepticScot

Of course it undermines the principles behind referendums.

Simply delay implementing the result of any future referendum as long as possible then hold another one without enacting the result of the first in the hope that one gets the 'desired' result.
It makes a mockery of holding referendums and renders them completely and utterly irrelevant.

Again, if any second referendum had a 52/48 vote for Remain would you support claims for third referendum?

There's only one principle behind the referendum, to hear the voice of the people on a given point. There is no obligation to actually make a change based on what you hear. In theory at least, if you heard the voice of the people at one point in time and decided to look further at the point raised, captured further information around it and sought to bring more evidence to the people in the form of a second referendum, you aren't undermining it if you do or don't act on the second referendum or the first.

When it comes to a referendum, Parliament is sovereign, it's not obligated to carry out the wish of the majority in the same way as it is in an election.

a reply to: uncommitted

So why call it a referendum then? Why is it not just called an "opinion poll"?