Second vote ? Why not .?

[bluewolf]

The 'issue' is the demands for a second vote before the result of the latest vote has been enacted...

We'll never agree on whether that is acceptable or not and I don't want to argue it.
My view is that people whinge. When that whinging is picked up by the MSM then the cause tends to accelerate. There was plenty of opposition to Europe that just wasn't accelerated until the advent of ukip. The cause against Brexit is accelerated now as it's already a main news story.

 

[bluewolf]

Yes they were! Either on acceptance of the Lisbon Treaty (with amendments that made it more likely for a 'Yes' result) or, perhaps, for withdrawl from the EU (IREXIT) - as that was the consequence of not accepting the Lisbon Treaty and the existing EU related amendments in the Irish Constitution!

But i agree - the Irish Ggovernment and the EU preferred a 2nd Lisbon Treaty referendum to an IREXIT one and recognising/being convinced of the need for specific changes for a 'Yes' result, made those changes! Cowen's quote was part of his, successful, argument for the EU to make (Ireland related/specific) changes to increase the likelihood of a 'Yes' result!



Well, he was in a very strong position - the Lisbon treaty was in limbo until/unless Ireland obtained a 'Yes' result at a 2nd referendum or left the EU (via a referendum and long period of exit negotiation of course - as Article 50 only 'arrived' as part of Lisbon Treaty!).

Right. I'm going to make it simple.
Ireland were given the opportunity to change their mind before the result of the referendum was enacted. That proved to be a good decision. They used EU money to improve their infrastructure and are now a net contributor. They then voted in favour of the EU by a margin of 9:1.........

They did not have to have a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The second referendum was "imposed" on them by the Government. If they so wanted they could have acted on the results of the initial referendum. They didn't.

Now, I'm going to ignore you from now on. It's better for my sanity. You're not really adding anything, just criticising what others post. Be more original in future please.

 

[MegaSteve]

We'll never agree on whether that is acceptable or not and I don't want to argue it.
My view is that people whinge. When that whinging is picked up by the MSM then the cause tends to accelerate. There was plenty of opposition to Europe that just wasn't accelerated until the advent of ukip. The cause against Brexit is accelerated now as it's already a main news story.

I agree, for something to go forward someone has to pick up the baton... And, as you suggest, in this case UKIP being the main carrier in recent times... We [the UK] did have a bit of a history of sending 'eurosceptics' to represent us at Brussels prior to UKIP though...

 

[bluewolf]

I agree, for something to go forward someone has to pick up the baton... And, as you suggest, in this case UKIP being the main carrier in recent times... We [the UK] did have a bit of a history of sending 'eurosceptics' to represent us at Brussels prior to UKIP though...

True. We were always an uncomfortable fit. I don't think we ever really integrated into the EU as a people. We distanced ourselves at every opportunity. Both Left and Right found reasons to distrust them. Some were genuine, some were pure paranoia. I'm not surprised they never really trusted us back 🤔

 

[Fade and Die]

True. We were always an uncomfortable fit. I don't think we ever really integrated into the EU as a people. We distanced ourselves at every opportunity. Both Left and Right found reasons to distrust them. Some were genuine, some were pure paranoia. I'm not surprised they never really trusted us back 🤔

Agree with this, I reckon it’s a geographical thing. We are and think like an Island race.
Borders changed in continental Europe constantly over the last 200 years, but not ours. (We just fought them all😁)

 

[Liverbirdie]

Now you're just being silly 😁

Everyone knew that this was an in/out vote and, under the rules of this referendum, the powers that be pledged to enact the will of the people. We voted by the required method to leave and democracy requires the will of the people to be carried out. It, in this instance, would be undemocratic to usurp the majority vote by asking for a 2nd, 3rd or say, 4th vote "to get it right" I personally voted in the referendum in the 70's to join the Common Market and once the vote was won no one asked for a second vote - now it's a sign of the times when you don't get what you want just ask for another go!

So technically we've had 2 votes on going into (or out of) Europe?

Madness, Mr. Speaker!!!!!

 

[Liverbirdie]

I don't see what 'has changed' we are in the negotiating stage, nothing was known about government/finance/boarders when we voted so let's see what they decide as "The deal" surely you're not suggesting that you, I, or anyone knows what will be agreed as a divorce at this stage? I'm not sure that I'd want to look at staying in just to satisfy a bunch of unelected EU wassocks who think negotiating is just a case of saying "no" and threatening us.

I haven't been involved in the "car" discussion but the Germans would suffer hugely if we didn't buy their cars and I'm pretty sure as the Germans and French own the EU they wouldn't put up with that scenario - we, of course, could by Japanese cars assembled in this country and provide valuable employment

I really don't see what 1940 has to do with a 2nd Brexit vote

Well you just brought 1970 into it, so why can't I bring 1940 into it?

The point being that a decision can be made that is incorrect and it takes a brave man/woman to change it. Yes, this is a referendum, but the analogy still counts.

If there was a 2nd vote and it was still leave, I wouldnt argue 1 more word.

A second vote is just as useful as a 2nd thread on the subject.......oh.

 

[bluewolf]

Agree with this, I reckon it’s a geographical thing. We are and think like an Island race.
Borders changed in continental Europe constantly over the last 200 years, but not ours. (We just fought them all😁)

Very true. We are a Nation apart. I do quite like our island mentality.

What does make me uncomfortable is the attitude that some exhibit that claims that we're better because we're British. As though we have a divine right to succeed. We aren't better. We're different. And not even that different. We're not braver or stronger or smarter (I'm better looking though). We really need to start focusing on our similarities rather than our minute differences.

 

[chrisd]

Well you just brought 1970 into it, so why can't I bring 1940 into it? - well, I did vote in 1973 but 1940???

The point being that a decision can be made that is incorrect and it takes a brave man/woman to change it. Yes, this is a referendum, but the analogy still counts. - 17m people reckon it was correct and there's no proof it's incorrect

If there was a 2nd vote and it was still leave, I wouldnt argue 1 more word. - bet you would 😀

A second vote is just as useful as a 2nd thread on the subject.......oh. - but much less democratic

 

[Liverbirdie]

We're not braver or stronger or smarter (I'm better looking though).

We're bloody good liars, as well.

 

[bluewolf]

We're bloody good liars, as well.

Just cos I'm not your type. We'll see how irresistible I am when I sleep at yours in November. 😂

 

[chrisd]

So technically we've had 2 votes on going into (or out of) Europe?

Madness, Mr. Speaker!!!!!

Yep, we voted to go in, bearing in mind it was just a "Common Market" so a trading bloc and little else

 

[Liverbirdie]

Well you just brought 1970 into it, so why can't I bring 1940 into it? - well, I did vote in 1973 but 1940???

The point being that a decision can be made that is incorrect and it takes a brave man/woman to change it. Yes, this is a referendum, but the analogy still counts. - 17m people reckon it was correct and there's no proof it's incorrect

If there was a 2nd vote and it was still leave, I wouldnt argue 1 more word. - bet you would 😀

A second vote is just as useful as a 2nd thread on the subject.......oh. - but much less democratic

I thought you were at the Congress of Vienna, Chris.

 

[Liverbirdie]

Just cos I'm not your type. We'll see how irresistible I am when I sleep at yours in November. 😂

Halloween ll.

 

[chrisd]

I thought you were at the Congress of Vienna, Chris.

1814 to 1815, long way to go for something that only lasted one minute 😁

 

[SocketRocket]

It really isn't. You're still really struggling to understand something incredibly simple.

Forget your own personal wants from this process. Forget the propaganda on both sides. Think of the black and white of it.

If the public want Brexit, they'll vote for it again.

If they now don't, they won't.

The will of the people (only now with more knowledge) would be revealed by a second referendum. This may demonstrate a change of opinion. This wouldn't be a circumvention of democracy, it would be allowing the public to change their mind.

No matter what the result of a potential second referendum, the government wouldn't have to reverse the Brexit process as it's NOT legally binding.

You are the one struggling to understand something incredibly simple. The government of the day decided to let the people decide whether we stay or leave the EU. The people decided to leave and that was conclusive. Only people that lost the vote are now asking for a rerun of the vote as they lost it. To satisfy the referendum we must leave, the terms we leave on is subject to negotiations between the uk government and the EU negotiators. Parliament and the House of Lords have been given the right to vote on the final deal, so accept it or leave with no deal. Thats it, no second referendum, no bleating about busses or Labours six tests. Period.

 

[Kellfire]

To satisfy the referendum we must leave

This is where your entire argument falls down because this is totally FALSE.

 

[Hobbit]

This is where your entire argument falls down because this is totally FALSE.

Its not false at all. Like your thoughts on the matter, its an opinion.

 

[Kellfire]

Its not false at all. Like your thoughts on the matter, its an opinion.

Of course it's false. Morally, he believes we need to leave to satisfy the referendum.

But legally, and that is what defines "must" in this case, we don't.

 

[User20205]

Its not false at all. Like your thoughts on the matter, its an opinion.

In as much as it’s not legally binding?? Whether there’s a moral obligation of any govt to implement is a separate conversation. I don’t think any govt could survive a non implementation, internally or externally