[Politics] Next Prime Minister

[stewart12]

Leavers probably accept that. Once the referendum result has been implemented, as voted for by Parliament, then I think we should have a vote every 5 years to see if we fancy joining the Euro Gang again (if it still exists). Once the referendum result has been adhered to, as per the agreement.

that's far more understandable than some of the madness posted on here and I definitely don't disagree with that

would perhaps be too short a time period though- 5 years? IF we are to see any benefit of leaving the EU I doubt it'll be within 5 years- even frothing at the mouth brexiteers like Jacob Rees Mogg have admitted that any benefits may be decades away. So we could see a situation where we're voting in and out frequently

I agree with the sentiment though

 

[CHAPPERS]

We were given a YES/NO vote, what part of that do you not understand?

The bit where it was forced upon me by a Tory PM trying to control his warring party, the bit where the campaigns (both but as it's playing out more the Leave side) lied consistently and freely, the bit where the financing on the Leave campaign has been shown to be illegal (especially when the DUP took out an advert in the Metro funded by someone else entirely), the lack of super majority for such a huge decision. I could go on.

There's lots I don't understand about it really.

Edit: adding the bit where we triggered Article 50 without a plan.

All controlled by a political party I didn't vote for, now to be lead by a PM that nobody voted for who has no ****ing clue what he wants apart from the top job.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

The bit where it was forced upon me by a Tory PM trying to control his warring party, the bit where the campaigns (both but as it's playing out more the Leave side) lied consistently and freely, the bit where the financing on the Leave campaign has been shown to be illegal (especially when the DUP took out an advert in the Metro funded by someone else entirely), the lack of super majority for such a huge decision. I could go on.

There's lots I don't understand about it really.

Almost sounds like Bliar taking us to war. Against most people's will.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

that's far more understandable than some of the madness posted on here and I definitely don't disagree with that

would perhaps be too short a time period though- 5 years? IF we are to see any benefit of leaving the EU I doubt it'll be within 5 years- even frothing at the mouth brexiteers like Jacob Rees Mogg have admitted that any benefits may be decades away. So we could see a situation where we're voting in and out frequently

I agree with the sentiment though

How did we cope before joining the common agricutural policy , it beggars belief we have to pamper to the EU , some people dont like change but they soon get used to it LEAVE MEANS LEAVE
Regards
DR

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

The bit where it was forced upon me by a Tory PM trying to control his warring party, the bit where the campaigns (both but as it's playing out more the Leave side) lied consistently and freely, the bit where the financing on the Leave campaign has been shown to be illegal (especially when the DUP took out an advert in the Metro funded by someone else entirely), the lack of super majority for such a huge decision. I could go on.

There's lots I don't understand about it really.

Edit: adding the bit where we triggered Article 50 without a plan.

All controlled by a political party I didn't vote for, now to be lead by a PM that nobody voted for who has no ****ing clue what he wants apart from the top job.

Sour grapes a bit like chucky and some of the remoaners in Westminster sooner we're out the less you can moan
regards
DR

 

[Sussex Nomad]

You only actually have one argument, don't you? You don't have anything intelligent to say as far as I can see. You just can't get over yourself. You fear democracy because democracy might change its mind.

Why do I fear democracy?
Why do I have one argument that is what the referendum was about YES/NO, why is there any other argument?
Why is that unintelligent?

Feel free to answer without your bile.

I guess you can't. Opportunity is there.

 

[Audax]

Why do Leavers always try to shut down debate on whether we should have a second referendum?

Polling results might have something to do with it: https://www.politico.eu/2019-european-elections/united-kingdom/#93494

Remain has now pulled into a clear lead, and the gap is widening as time passes.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Why do Leavers always try to shut down debate on whether we should have a second referendum?

Polling results might have something to do with it: https://www.politico.eu/2019-european-elections/united-kingdom/#93494

Remain has now pulled into a clear lead, and the gap is widening as time passes.

We had the referendum in 2016, what part of referendum do you not get? All your polls can do whatever they want to do, they get paid handsomely for their data.

 

[A1X]

What a load of old drivel to basically point out you aren't happy with the consensus of the British public and demand a re-run.

Wow. The quality and depth of your counterargument is simply astonishing, and to do it in such a good-natured and reasoned way was refreshing in this day and age.

5*, would debate again.

 

[Audax]

We had the referendum in 2016, what part of referendum do you not get? All your polls can do whatever they want to do, they get paid handsomely for their data.

Something else Leavers like to do "We already had a vote, so we don't need another one..." ... neatly forgetting that anti-EU campaigners never stopped pushing for exit even after the 1975 election produced a far clearer result than the 2016 referendum did.

Setting that aside, the 2016 Referendum was flawed for a number of reasons. A few years later, we now know a lot more about what Brexit actually entails (although we're still none the wiser on exactly what Brexit we're going to end up with). We also know a lot more about how *some* pro-Brexit (and pro-Remain, to be fair) campaigners attempted to subvert democracy during the referendum. The polling shows a clear shift in public opinion.

The whole idea that holding another vote before implementing Brexit is "undemocratic" that the hardline Leavers keep pushing is a load of bollocks. Holding a "confirmatory" vote would be the most democratic way of solving the problem as long as it is handled appropriately. Especially given that, 3 years on, there is now a significant number of UK citizens who were not eligible to vote in the first referendum who are now eligible. They should be given a chance to cast their vote on a better structured, better defined question.

Something I suspect many hardline "No Deal" supporters forget is that there's probably a small, but still substantial, subset of "Leave" voters who would vote against a No Deal Brexit. While Leave support is still well above 40%, I suspect that "No Deal Brexit" is actually in the 30-35% range and would struggle to win a referendum.




Personally, if we did hold a second (sorry ... third) referendum on EU membership, it should go as follows:

Q1. Should the UK remain a member of the EU?

- Leave
- Remain

Q2. If a majority vote to Leave the EU, should the UK Leave with or without a deal?

- No Deal
- With Deal (May's deal, or whatever our next PM can conjure up)


Should the next PM try to force through No Deal and abandon any form of actual deal, then it becomes even simpler:

Q. Should the UK Remain a member of the EU or Leave with no deal?

- Remain
- No Deal

 

[Is it PotG?]

Why do Leavers always try to shut down debate on whether we should have a second referendum?

Polling results might have something to do with it: https://www.politico.eu/2019-european-elections/united-kingdom/#93494

Remain has now pulled into a clear lead, and the gap is widening as time passes.

The first result hasn't been paid out yet, one thing at a time.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Something else Leavers like to do "We already had a vote, so we don't need another one..." ... neatly forgetting that anti-EU campaigners never stopped pushing for exit even after the 1975 election produced a far clearer result than the 2016 referendum did.

Setting that aside, the 2016 Referendum was flawed for a number of reasons. A few years later, we now know a lot more about what Brexit actually entails (although we're still none the wiser on exactly what Brexit we're going to end up with). We also know a lot more about how *some* pro-Brexit (and pro-Remain, to be fair) campaigners attempted to subvert democracy during the referendum. The polling shows a clear shift in public opinion.

The whole idea that holding another vote before implementing Brexit is "undemocratic" that the hardline Leavers keep pushing is a load of bollocks. Holding a "confirmatory" vote would be the most democratic way of solving the problem as long as it is handled appropriately. Especially given that, 3 years on, there is now a significant number of UK citizens who were not eligible to vote in the first referendum who are now eligible. They should be given a chance to cast their vote on a better structured, better defined question.

Something I suspect many hardline "No Deal" supporters forget is that there's probably a small, but still substantial, subset of "Leave" voters who would vote against a No Deal Brexit. While Leave support is still well above 40%, I suspect that "No Deal Brexit" is actually in the 30-35% range and would struggle to win a referendum.




Personally, if we did hold a second (sorry ... third) referendum on EU membership, it should go as follows:

Q1. Should the UK remain a member of the EU?

- Leave
- Remain

Q2. If a majority vote to Leave the EU, should the UK Leave with or without a deal?

- No Deal
- With Deal (May's deal, or whatever our next PM can conjure up)


Should the next PM try to force through No Deal and abandon any form of actual deal, then it becomes even simpler:

Q. Should the UK Remain a member of the EU or Leave with no deal?

- Remain
- No Deal

Q1 was answered. Still awaiting the pay-out.

 

[dandanthebrightonfan]

A lying, lecherous, oaf of a man and that's what Boris's friends think of him.

 

[BensGrandad]

Why do Leavers always try to shut down debate on whether we should have a second referendum

Becasue the result was the wish of the people or do we keep having another referendum until we get the result that the politicians want.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Wow. The quality and depth of your counterargument is simply astonishing, and to do it in such a good-natured and reasoned way was refreshing in this day and age.

5*, would debate again.

Lowest form of wit.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Something else Leavers like to do "We already had a vote, so we don't need another one..." ... neatly forgetting that anti-EU campaigners never stopped pushing for exit even after the 1975 election produced a far clearer result than the 2016 referendum did.

Setting that aside, the 2016 Referendum was flawed for a number of reasons. A few years later, we now know a lot more about what Brexit actually entails (although we're still none the wiser on exactly what Brexit we're going to end up with). We also know a lot more about how *some* pro-Brexit (and pro-Remain, to be fair) campaigners attempted to subvert democracy during the referendum. The polling shows a clear shift in public opinion.

The whole idea that holding another vote before implementing Brexit is "undemocratic" that the hardline Leavers keep pushing is a load of bollocks. Holding a "confirmatory" vote would be the most democratic way of solving the problem as long as it is handled appropriately. Especially given that, 3 years on, there is now a significant number of UK citizens who were not eligible to vote in the first referendum who are now eligible. They should be given a chance to cast their vote on a better structured, better defined question.

Something I suspect many hardline "No Deal" supporters forget is that there's probably a small, but still substantial, subset of "Leave" voters who would vote against a No Deal Brexit. While Leave support is still well above 40%, I suspect that "No Deal Brexit" is actually in the 30-35% range and would struggle to win a referendum.




Personally, if we did hold a second (sorry ... third) referendum on EU membership, it should go as follows:

Q1. Should the UK remain a member of the EU?

- Leave
- Remain

Q2. If a majority vote to Leave the EU, should the UK Leave with or without a deal?

- No Deal
- With Deal (May's deal, or whatever our next PM can conjure up)


Should the next PM try to force through No Deal and abandon any form of actual deal, then it becomes even simpler:

Q. Should the UK Remain a member of the EU or Leave with no deal?

- Remain
- No Deal

I'll ask you one question and one question only, would it have been flawed if Remain won?

 

[Eeyore]

Journalists hustings today.

Guess which one of the candidates didn't turn up.

Yeah, thought you'd get it.

 

[daveinplzen]

I'll ask you one question and one question only, would it have been flawed if Remain won?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681/comments

Dont worry mate. People realise leavers are scared of losing a 2nd ref.

Hopefully, nobody joins in this conversation, so you dont feel like youre being ATTACKED, by PACKS, in a RAGE

 

[Sussex Nomad]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681/comments

Dont worry mate. People realise leavers are scared of losing a 2nd ref.

Hopefully, nobody joins in this conversation, so you dont feel like youre being ATTACKED, by PACKS, in a RAGE

Red Dave on his soap box.

 

[daveinplzen]

Red Dave on his soap box.

No just pointing out what Farage said....Sorry it doesnt fit your memory, and yes, I am a Socialist, but so are some prominent leavers.
Is this all a left vs right battle to you then?