[Politics] Brexit

[birthofanorange]

I don't post very often, but I do read with interest the varying opinions on this. I will state (for the record) that I am a Remainer, but not fanatically so, and am open to reasoned arguments from reasonable people.
I completely accept the majority vote was to Leave, and had the margin been far greater than 4%, I would have accepted the outcome without reservations. However, because of the closeness of the vote, and the fact that there was misleading information, possibly illegal interference, and a lack of clarity as to exactly what 'Leave' meant to some voters, it surely cannot be seen as unreasonable (nor, indeed undemocratic) to re-examine the decision?
If a person was convicted of a crime (for example), by a majority jury verdict, yet a year or so later some new evidence cast some doubt on the verdict, would it not be fair and reasonable to examine the new information , with a view to a potential re-trial, or would we just say "Well, the majority voted guilty, and that's the way it is."?
Surely something of this importance to everyone posting on this thread should be given every opportunity to be examined in every way, and not rooted in what may (or may not) have been an enlightened (or misguided) decision?
There is nothing to lose by a second referendum, but possibly everything to gain. For both sides.

 

[BadFish]

I don't post very often, but I do read with interest the varying opinions on this. I will state (for the record) that I am a Remainer, but not fanatically so, and am open to reasoned arguments from reasonable people.
I completely accept the majority vote was to Leave, and had the margin been far greater than 4%, I would have accepted the outcome without reservations. However, because of the closeness of the vote, and the fact that there was misleading information, possibly illegal interference, and a lack of clarity as to exactly what 'Leave' meant to some voters, it surely cannot be seen as unreasonable (nor, indeed undemocratic) to re-examine the decision?
If a person was convicted of a crime (for example), by a majority jury verdict, yet a year or so later some new evidence cast some doubt on the verdict, would it not be fair and reasonable to examine the new information , with a view to a potential re-trial, or would we just say "Well, the majority voted guilty, and that's the way it is."?
Surely something of this importance to everyone posting on this thread should be given every opportunity to be examined in every way, and not rooted in what may (or may not) have been an enlightened (or misguided) decision?
There is nothing to lose by a second referendum, but possibly everything to gain. For both sides.

Good post, I remain on the fence about Brexit and continue to believe that the problems of the UK are caused more by National Governments rather than the EU. I wholeheartedly agree with your post and agree that the decision should be reevaluated. I also think the opportunity should be taken to find out more about what people want from Brexit as this would assist those making the decision to deliver what the people want. The original question was IMHO ridiculously simple and IMHO should have been the first of many questions to dig deeper into peoples opinions.

 

[melias shoes]

https://youtu.be/Iwk3YMSoMI8
No deal cheered to the rafters on BBC question time.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

You know you can mean something nonchalantly, dismissively. “He’s a bit of a prick”. Not angry, just descriptive.

Oh come off it - that isn't what you posted. You quoted a number of posters and each time just replied "prick". If you don't think that smacks of being angry and aggressive then I suggest next time you're in a pub, pick a random person and go up to them and just say 'prick' to them. Feel free to report back what happens ..... I suspect it might be a little more than a ban from NSC !

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Also with their flailing position and using the stalling of a deal for political point scoring has put me off Labour, I think if there ends up being a GE this year I'd vote Lib Dem.

It's worrying how many Albion supporters have such short memories !

 

[The Clamp]

Oh come off it - that isn't what you posted. You quoted a number of posters and each time just replied "prick". If you don't think that smacks of being angry and aggressive then I suggest next time you're in a pub, pick a random person and go up to them and just say 'prick' to them. Feel free to report back what happens ..... I suspect it might be a little more than a ban from NSC !

Whatevs. I’m sure you know best

 

[fanseagull]

Perfectly reasonable people are fine, many remainers know how democracy should function and have already recognised the result must be respected and we should Leave the EU.
The unreasonable, in order to cure themselves of their divisiveness need to understand what democracy is again and should recognise we should Leave the EU because that is what the referendum instructed.
But I have already told you this though, the fact you have to keep asking just shows you are struggling with the concept. I wont bother answering if you ask again, now that you know what you need to do to self heal.


No, you skirt around the main issue as usual and chuck in rude asides as well; I ask again, what might bring the completely divided voting public back together if not a second referendum.

I conclude that you have no answer to that, so I suppose my second thought is - does that matter to you?

 

[The Clamp]

The result of the referendum was specifically declared non-binding and then the law was changed to renege on this promise. Can you imagine the furore and cries of “affront to Democracy” this would have elicited from the Leave mob if this had happened in reverse and a binding agreement had been made non-binding.

I suppose they only like democracy when it swings in their favour.

 

[Baldseagull]

Oh dear, now posting the same meaningless nonsense video that [MENTION=14365]Thunder Bolt[/MENTION] trawls up from irrelevant random people on twitter.
Yes he did say there could be two referendums in that process. And he is entirely correct, you could indeed. But so what. He was absolutely NOT saying you could have or supporting to have a second referendum after negotiations to withdraw from the EU have completed which is what these rubbish tweets and video imply and the 2nd referendum people want.

I think his point was that we should not leave, until the people had a referendum on what we were leaving to, that is implied isn't it?
I would be happy to see exactly what the easiest trade deal in history would actually look like before we leave, if only they could do more than outline it before we leave, as they can't, we will just have to have it on the outline.
All the same people that voted last time get a chance to vote again, except the dead ones, so fully democratic. Quite undemocratic of you to not want one, or limit it to leave only options.

 

[Baldseagull]

https://youtu.be/Iwk3YMSoMI8
No deal cheered to the rafters on BBC question time.

I guess if 40 people in Derby have given their approval, no need for a referendum.

 

[The Clamp]

https://youtu.be/Iwk3YMSoMI8
No deal cheered to the rafters on BBC question time.

History will show them to be utter fools.

 

[ManOfSussex]

I guess if 40 people in Derby have given their approval, no need for a referendum.

You've also got to factor in my cousin and her husband who live in Derby who voted remain - it's down to 38 I'm afraid.

 

[vegster]

https://youtu.be/Iwk3YMSoMI8
No deal cheered to the rafters on BBC question time.

Strange? If you look closely at the picture none of the audience are actually cheering, they are just clapping. Has someone edited this and added cheers in the same manner that they add the squeals during routines on Strictly?

 

[cunning fergus]

I don't post very often, but I do read with interest the varying opinions on this. I will state (for the record) that I am a Remainer, but not fanatically so, and am open to reasoned arguments from reasonable people.
I completely accept the majority vote was to Leave, and had the margin been far greater than 4%, I would have accepted the outcome without reservations. However, because of the closeness of the vote, and the fact that there was misleading information, possibly illegal interference, and a lack of clarity as to exactly what 'Leave' meant to some voters, it surely cannot be seen as unreasonable (nor, indeed undemocratic) to re-examine the decision?
If a person was convicted of a crime (for example), by a majority jury verdict, yet a year or so later some new evidence cast some doubt on the verdict, would it not be fair and reasonable to examine the new information , with a view to a potential re-trial, or would we just say "Well, the majority voted guilty, and that's the way it is."?
Surely something of this importance to everyone posting on this thread should be given every opportunity to be examined in every way, and not rooted in what may (or may not) have been an enlightened (or misguided) decision?
There is nothing to lose by a second referendum, but possibly everything to gain. For both sides.

You make your point well, however that will not be how everyone will understand it. Maybe that is because they have entrenched and bigoted views, maybe they have lofty and more well informed views or maybe they operate under an unconscious bias. I think, as this thread neatly demonstrates, all 3 characteristics are at play from both sides of the debate on this thread.

To be frank there are many posts on here that are reasoned and well articulated but has anyone ultimately changed their mind? No.

Those posting on here now though are probably representative of (say) 20% ardent remain and 20% ardent leave, no end of reasoned argument moves their minds.

The 60% in the middle, representing the more pragmatic may well see the sense in your assessment, however they will still have their own various views on the 2nd referendum for reasons of fairness, eg will it be a straight 2 options, a combination of the 3 etc. To that end “fairness” will be a big factor because to the pragmatic that is what they want delivered. The public at large don’t trust politicians, a point both Brexit sides will be in passionate agreement on. If a 2nd referendum is not considered fair (in whatever way) chaos will result.

The more mature voters know full well how the political class operate, because to quote the French plus ca change! And they should know.....

https://www.thelocal.fr/20160628/brexit-rethink-a-look-at-frances-2005-eu-referendum

That’s because, while they don’t convey it publicly the most entrenched and bigoted views held in the U.K. are with politicians themselves.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

Unless Brexit is stopped we are heading towards a national catastrophe.
Is that what you all want for you, your children and your grandchildren.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Unless Brexit is stopped we are heading towards a national catastrophe.
Is that what you all want for you, your children and your grandchildren.

I fail to see that you can say that with any conviction or factual evidence. Financial bods disagree, as do business leaders. In 10 years we may look back and say it was the best move. Any other sentiments of doom or elation are equally 'suck it and see'.

Catastrophe? Not so sure.

 

[The Clamp]

Car bomb in Londonderry

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-46934277

Thankfully nobody hurt. However, unlike the flag waving and protesting this shows a concerning return to organised bombing and terror with a phoned in warning and a possible second car bomb planted nearby.

I imagine it takes some means and organisation to pull this off. Hopefully this will be an isolated incident. I would have hoped nobody wants this sort of thing to rear it’s ugly head again. Unfortunately it seems somebody does.

 

[Baldseagull]

 

[The Clamp]

I fail to see that you can say that with any conviction or factual evidence. Financial bods disagree, as do business leaders. In 10 years we may look back and say it was the best move. Any other sentiments of doom or elation are equally 'suck it and see'.

Catastrophe? Not so sure.

I would say financial experts are, at best , split over the repercussions of Brexit.

 

[WATFORD zero]

You make your point well, however that will not be how everyone will understand it. Maybe that is because they have entrenched and bigoted views, maybe they have lofty and more well informed views or maybe they operate under an unconscious bias. I think, as this thread neatly demonstrates, all 3 characteristics are at play from both sides of the debate on this thread.

To be frank there are many posts on here that are reasoned and well articulated but has anyone ultimately changed their mind? No.

Those posting on here now though are probably representative of (say) 20% ardent remain and 20% ardent leave, no end of reasoned argument moves their minds.

The 60% in the middle, representing the more pragmatic may well see the sense in your assessment, however they will still have their own various views on the 2nd referendum for reasons of fairness, eg will it be a straight 2 options, a combination of the 3 etc. To that end “fairness” will be a big factor because to the pragmatic that is what they want delivered. The public at large don’t trust politicians, a point both Brexit sides will be in passionate agreement on. If a 2nd referendum is not considered fair (in whatever way) chaos will result.

The more mature voters know full well how the political class operate, because to quote the French plus ca change! And they should know.....

https://www.thelocal.fr/20160628/brexit-rethink-a-look-at-frances-2005-eu-referendum

That’s because, while they don’t convey it publicly the most entrenched and bigoted views held in the U.K. are with politicians themselves.

As you know, I agree with a lot of what you say about the problems and issues, It's just the solution we disagree on. I am well aware that I am probably as entrenched (or maybe as lofty and well informed) as yourself in my views, but I really can't see what else would get us out of the current situation other than a second referendum.

Your absolutely right in that the 'fairness' of it will be critical, but using some sort of AV, with the widest (realistic) set of options, is the only way I can see out of this mess

Oh well, on the bright side, at least Cameron got to cover up the cracks in his party