Boris is Boss

[Top_gun]

Fixed that for you. A lot has happened since then, whether a leave answer still commands a majority is up for debate. Still a vote was taken and the result should be upheld. However the situation we now find ourselves in, you have to take a minute and reflect if the democratic will of the people is more important than a self-inflicted economic downturn (amongst other potential issues).

I think it is time for another referendum to gain a more accurate insight to which way the country is heading in terms of Brexit. No point in exiting Europe if the will of the people is becoming more EU in generations to come.

The concept of a referendum is merely to act as an advisory indicator to parliament.

[opel80uk]

The referendum was as well run, organised and campaigned for as it possibly could be, and the result was democratic.

This has to be one of the most absurd posts I’ve read on Brexit. Regardless of whether one is a Leaver or Remainer, I doubt anyone could seriously argue that it was 'as well run, organised and campaigned for as it possibly could be'. Referendum 101 will tell you the following:

• A referendum needs the consequences for either/all voting options explained explicitly. This was clearly not the case, and this is most evident in the leavers vote; some think May’s deal constitutes a Brexit, others do not. There was no clear definition of what ‘Leaving the European Union’ meant. Norway are not in the European Union, but many Brexit voters would not be happy with the relationship that they have with EU, others would. If it was explained that a vote for Brexit would mean leaving with No Deal (rather than being told by the majority of Leave campaigners explicitly that there WOULD be a deal), I suspect most supporters of that outcome know the vote would have been a lot closer, and perhaps even lost.

• You need to make clear that if a referendum is merely advisory, then there is no obligation whatsoever on the Government to enact the result. That people are surprised that MP’s are not doing what they said they would is like being surprised you’ve stepped in bear crap in the woods.

• An entirely separate body to the Electoral Commission should have been set up to oversee the referendum, for the entirely obvious reason that a referendum is not, and should not, be like an election. Fundamental changes to a constitution should not be voted on on the basis of whether you like policies being offered AND whether you believe in the party/politicians you voted for enacting said policies. A referendum needs greater oversight as to what is being said and what is being promised, especially if, as appears Brexit supporters want in this case, the vote is to be binding; as there should be no going back after a correctly run referendum, at least for a generation or short of a monumental change in a countries circumstance. (and also in the absence of a Direct Democracy system a la the Swiss)

So, contrary to your claim that it was 'as well run, organised and campaigned for as it possibly could be', it was none of those things by any measure, IMO.

[Galant]

Fixed that for you. A lot has happened since then, whether a leave answer still commands a majority is up for debate. Still a vote was taken and the result should be upheld. However the situation we now find ourselves in, you have to take a minute and reflect if the democratic will of the people is more important than a self-inflicted economic downturn (amongst other potential issues).

Yes it is.

Here's why.

1. The people may well have factored that in. They should have, some will have, some won't have, but that's part of being an adult, the freedom to screw up.
2. Consider what you're implying. The free will of people should be weighed by some other people to decide by their own standard whether or not it's acceptable. This in itself implies that those select few are somehow superior to, or more important than, the citizenry. I hope the significance and danger of that doesn't need spelling out...

One might argue that's what's special about those people is that they were elected as representatives. However, in this case we elected them under the mandate of them giving us a say in this matter, with they themselves promising not only to do so but to honour that say. For them to turn around and then reject the choice made is unacceptable. Is this specific case they have no mandate to do that. Aside from the referendum vote itself they were elected to be representatives on the basis of providing and honouring a referendum - not because they are our betters or know better. If we believed that we wouldn't have called for a referendum in the first place.

[Corky34]

Can you take the time to explain this further? Or alternatively form a logical response to Galant's post?

If that's not an explanation and doesn't make logical sense to you I'm not sure what would, after all onus probandi dictates that it's yourself or Galant's *responsibility to explain why you believe "Johnson has a mandate to deliver the will of the people" and what the will of the people even is.

Edit: *Something (s)he has politely done in a latter post so i guess what i said made sense to him/her.

[Ferral]

You know Switzerland held a referendum a few year back and something or other happened with the outcome and/or people weren't completely sure what was meant to be happening so the government being democratic held another referendum once correct facts were in place to see just what their people wanted.

Here though the far right start screaming anti democracy at the thought of another referendum, why is that? Are they afraid that things might change to remain.. The idiot known as Farage said it wouldn't be over if he didn't get his own way so those that voted remain have taken a leaf out of the idiots book and decided it isn't over and are making noise. Freedom of speech and the likes.

Oh and again, stop spouting will of the people, it isn't my will or that of many other people in the UK, it is not a good point to keep spouting, it is a load of tosh

So now we need that mop haired arse Johnson to be outed and his tory scumbags taken along with him and someone with an ounce of common sense to actually lead and bring this country back together. This needs to be someone that will look at everything not just what the rich and elite want. I am not talking about Corbyn here given the way he is going but something needs to be done and putting things back to the people will probably be the only way out of this sodding mess.

[b0redom]

Get off the damn fence and say what you actually mean Ferral!

[Ferral]

Get off the damn fence and say what you actually mean Ferral!

Hell yeah, to quote The Dead Daisies "Make some noise!!"

Down the boozer of in a group of friends this is how I would say it so why not!

[Zak33]

Get off the damn fence and say what you actually mean Ferral!

He's one of the best Mods' in the world tbh... he's been doing this since before me.. hell...he nominated me for the job. Decades of posts have been under his nose.

and when Ferral shouts, tbh.. best duck cos it happens so very rarely, he clearly means it.

[Galant]

You know Switzerland held a referendum a few year back and something or other happened with the outcome and/or people weren't completely sure what was meant to be happening so the government being democratic held another referendum once correct facts were in place to see just what their people wanted.

Here though the far right start screaming anti democracy at the thought of another referendum, why is that?

I'll tell you why. It's because in this referendum and issue it's not any facts that are in dispute. It's the losing side not liking the result and wanting a do-over, which is no reason at all to hold a second referendum. What's more, EU related referendums have a history of being recalled and repeated until the "correct" (read , 'remain') result appears. That fact has people concerned.

There is simply no evidence of large scale numbers of leave voters feeling as though they were mislead or under informed or that they are confused. The calls for a second referendum have always come from the losing side and talk of it started pretty soon after the first result.

Additionally, the calls for referendum #2 come with a request for different and multiple options on the ballot. Such a move would only further dilute the vote and reduce any majority. It's not feasible. Nor can there be sufficient options given to account for all the possibilities that come with Brexit. For these reasons, and others, the only possible valid ballot in an in/out vote such as we have already had. But as I said, it's not confused leave voters calling for this, it's dismayed remain voters trying to change the result. And that's no reason to have a second referendum.

Lastly, the oft repeated suggestion that voters weren't in possession of the facts is laughable. Not because all voters knew everything about everything but because:

1 - Voters never have all the facts.
2 - 'Facts' about the future aren't usually facts, their projections or guesses.
3 - It's up to each voter to weigh the facts and decide what priority to give them.
4 - Which facts are we all supposed to be listening to?

Prior to the vote there were all sorts of supposed facts about what would happen if the UK voted to leave, from all sorts of big, powerful and national entities. The vast majority of them have proven to be horrifically wrong. Are those the facts we're also supposed to listen to - and having listened... to obey?

5 - The very nature of Brexit, in it's complexity and essence, is such that the question is a matter of will and choice with regards to an open and variable future. Brexit is about moving away from something into the freedom to make something else. The something else is yet to be decided, and will always be being built, but built upon a certain foundation. The foundation that the citizens of the United Kingdom alone will bear the burden, and enjoy the freedom, of building their society in whichever way they deem best (and not governed by the distant body that is the EU). That's a matter of will, of choice, an essential right, that underguirds, and gives platform to, that consideration of individual facts or data.

[Ferral]

Sorry but saying the losing side just wants a do over, have a word with yourself. The far left want that much like the far right are dead against it and say it's anti democratic, that point is just null and void.

There has been a lot of information come to light over the past 3+ years, both sides of the table were littered with lies and empty promises with their own agendas. There has been a lot of stuff (or should that be guff) shown to be incorrect and misleading on both sides. Now that more facts have come to light we as a nation can make a better informed decision.

A lot of the scaremongering presently on both sides is down to the press, it gets more readers and sells papers. I find it quite laughable that so many are so gullible reading morning rags like The Sun, wasn't it them that started the whole Project Fear crap. Then some far right go on about the Lisbon Treaty and European Army etc etc etc, the Lisbon Treaty became active 2009, Article 50 is part of said Lisbon Treaty which our government agreed and signed.

Then of course hands up and be honest here. Before the whole referendum and divisions I am talking about here.

Who actually thought about Europe and leaving before the ref?

How many actually had sleepless nights thinking Europe is screwing us over or whatever else?

I reckon it cannot be many at all in all fairness. All it has successfully done is tear the country apart right down to families, more hate crimes and terrorism. The absolute mad thing is though the new terrorism threat has been coming from the far right, that nugget was on Sky news a few weeks back.

But to counter the point about leave voters that can quite easily be applied the other way. There is no evidence full stop for either side changing minds, being misled and so on making the point rather moot.

But yeah the will of the people just keeps tripping of Johnsons tongue and other far right that have nothing better to say or bring to the table. Essentially it is people throwing their toys out the pram because maybe after 3+ years they aren't getting their way..

[Corky34]

It's the losing side not liking the result and wanting a do-over, which is no reason at all to hold a second referendum.

I'm not going to pretend a do-over is not something I'd like, for various reasons, however we're in the situation were in because parliament can't decide what people voted for 3 years ago. Yes people said they didn't want to be a member of the EU but we, and parliament, only seem capable of saying what we don't want, we don't want to be a member of the EU, we don't want to leave without a deal, we don't want to leave with May's deal, we don't want to revoke, extend, etc, etc.

Asking people what they don't want normally isn't a good idea, eventually people have to decide what they do want.

[Saracen999]

I'm not going to pretend a do-over is not something I'd like, for various reasons, however we're in the situation were in because parliament can't decide what people voted for 3 years ago. Yes people said they didn't want to be a member of the EU but we, and parliament, only seem capable of saying what we don't want, we don't want to be a member of the EU, we don't want to leave without a deal, we don't want to leave with May's deal, we don't want to revoke, extend, etc, etc.

Asking people what they don't want normally isn't a good idea, eventually people have to decide what they do want.

The problem is that it's a different group that don't want some of those to those that don't wsnt the other. And largely, that means MPs.

We, the people, were asked what we wanted, a binary choice, do we want to Remain in the EU, or Leave?

A large chunk responded to being asked by not replying, and we can infer little or nothing from that. And a clear majority of 5hose voting, voted Leave. If those entitled to vote that didn't now don't like it, and we don't know that that is the case, then they should have voted.


There is a question that I seriously wonder about, though.

What, at this point, do the other EU27 want?

I think it was certainly the case that, at referendum date and for a while afterwards, they hoped we'd somehow change our minds, but I wonder if they still do? After all, Brexit is a UK problem, and this interminable wrangling on this side of the channel has, I bet, worn very thin in both Brussels and especially 27 European national capitals.

If, somehow, we end up not Leaving in a few weeks, just what does another extension achieve? If there's a mutually acceptable deal imminent, that's one thing but so far, at least publicly, that's looking like rocking-horse poop.

Do they want mobths more of this, still probably getting nowhere? I doubt it.

Worse than that, from the depth of the division evident 3ven on this forum, never mind in the rest of the nation where it seems to be every bit as devisive and considerably more poisonous, do they still want us to Remain? Because, surely, they must be aware that if somehow we do, this issue is not going away any time soon. And Leavers of both Labour and Conservative persuasions have already demonsteated, twice, in EU elections that they're willing to forego traditional party allegiances and vote for Eurosceptic Farage-ist parties.

I have to wonder if, at this point, there might not be a growing feeling that they just don't want us in any more if this, as seems inevitable, is going to continue to fester, wuth a UK inside the EU?

IIRC (and I'm sure I do) any article 50 extension requires unanimoys EU27 approval, or it don't happen. Macron let his arm be twisted last time, but .... again? Maybe not. And he usb't the only one.


It might well end up not being BoJo, not being Parliament, not being a UK coyrt and not bring Brex-Ref 2.0 that decides our exit. It might well be an increasinly exasperated EU27 that finally run out of patience.

Wouldn't that be ironic.

[Galant]

Sorry but saying the losing side just wants a do over, have a word with yourself. The far left want that much like the far right are dead against it and say it's anti democratic, that point is just null and void.

Can you restate this? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

My point was on response to your Switzerland example where the government apparently called a second referendum due to public confusion.

I was attempting to point out that that's not why a second referendum is being sought for Brexit. It's not that people are confused or have changed their minds. Rather, the ones calling for it are of the same mind they always were, and they are not confused, they simply do not want Brexit.

And that's no reason for a second referendum.

If people who voted leave do feel misinformed or confused then I haven't heard it. It's always accusations by remain supporters attempting to discredit the referendum result by one means or another.

[Galant]

The problem is that it's a different group that don't want some of those to those that don't wsnt the other. And largely, that means MPs.

We, the people, were asked what we wanted, a binary choice, do we want to Remain in the EU, or Leave?

A large chunk responded to being asked by not replying, and we can infer little or nothing from that. And a clear majority of 5hose voting, voted Leave. If those entitled to vote that didn't now don't like it, and we don't know that that is the case, then they should have voted.


There is a question that I seriously wonder about, though.

What, at this point, do the other EU27 want?

I think it was certainly the case that, at referendum date and for a while afterwards, they hoped we'd somehow change our minds, but I wonder if they still do? After all, Brexit is a UK problem, and this interminable wrangling on this side of the channel has, I bet, worn very thin in both Brussels and especially 27 European national capitals.

If, somehow, we end up not Leaving in a few weeks, just what does another extension achieve? If there's a mutually acceptable deal imminent, that's one thing but so far, at least publicly, that's looking like rocking-horse poop.

Do they want mobths more of this, still probably getting nowhere? I doubt it.

Worse than that, from the depth of the division evident 3ven on this forum, never mind in the rest of the nation where it seems to be every bit as devisive and considerably more poisonous, do they still want us to Remain? Because, surely, they must be aware that if somehow we do, this issue is not going away any time soon. And Leavers of both Labour and Conservative persuasions have already demonsteated, twice, in EU elections that they're willing to forego traditional party allegiances and vote for Eurosceptic Farage-ist parties.

I have to wonder if, at this point, there might not be a growing feeling that they just don't want us in any more if this, as seems inevitable, is going to continue to fester, wuth a UK inside the EU?

IIRC (and I'm sure I do) any article 50 extension requires unanimoys EU27 approval, or it don't happen. Macron let his arm be twisted last time, but .... again? Maybe not. And he usb't the only one.


It might well end up not being BoJo, not being Parliament, not being a UK coyrt and not bring Brex-Ref 2.0 that decides our exit. It might well be an increasinly exasperated EU27 that finally run out of patience.

Wouldn't that be ironic.

I don't think that would ever happen. Our economy is too valuable to get fed up with. They'll push and bend until we leave or break down and remain.

[Galant]

I'm not going to pretend a do-over is not something I'd like, for various reasons, however we're in the situation were in because parliament can't decide what people voted for 3 years ago. Yes people said they didn't want to be a member of the EU but we, and parliament, only seem capable of saying what we don't want, we don't want to be a member of the EU, we don't want to leave without a deal, we don't want to leave with May's deal, we don't want to revoke, extend, etc, etc.

Asking people what they don't want normally isn't a good idea, eventually people have to decide what they do want.

I don't think it's that parliament can't decide what people voted for. It's that they don't want it. As evidenced by the moves to overturn the referendum. If it were simply a matter of coming up with a plan then they would be able to resolve it. As it is, there are too many MPs who refuse to accept a future outside the EU.

[Ferral]

My point is that Far Left and Far Right are hung up on ideals for the want of better words. Regardless of how I voted I still kind of think fair enough that was that get on with it but don't take us over a cliff edge like a bunch of lemmings.

Far Left wanting a second ref for whatever reason and usually using lines like lies during campaigns to leave as an example.

Far Right then going it's undemocratic to hold a second vote.

They are as bad as each other.

Then you have the folk in the middle much like Zak and myself and others here who accepted the outcome, fair enough I am not happy with it but what the hell.

So you cannot put all those who chose remain in the same place as far left much like the racists etc that are associated with the far right.

I personally think another ref is needed not because we lost but because of the current mess we are in that the tories have created over the last few years and no one from any party actually agreeing on anything. Put it out to a public vote where we can choose what direction we want before we as a country implode.