EM2
Established Member
Why thank you!+100 cool points for you, good Sir!
And for those that don't get the reference:
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...
- Thread starter ainsworth74
- Start date
- Status
And for those that don't get the reference:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Brilliant!
I have never understood the rationale that having a second referendum would be anti-democratic, how can having a vote ever be that? The reason leavers hate the idea is that they fear they would lose their beloved brexit, surely if it was such a good idea the first time people will vote for it again, so what are they worried about?
Also, if second referendums are such a bad idea and should not be allowed we should not have had the one in 2016. We had the first referendum in 1975 when we confirmed our membership, 2016 was the second referendum and any subsequent one would be the third.
If the current debacle proves anything, it is that referenda are a terrible way to make policy.
Also, if second referendums are such a bad idea and should not be allowed we should not have had the one in 2016. We had the first referendum in 1975 when we confirmed our membership, 2016 was the second referendum and any subsequent one would be the third.
If the current debacle proves anything, it is that referenda are a terrible way to make policy.
Killingworth
Established Member
We need a new Referendum Act that makes it very clear well in advance of any future ballot that no change will be made without a vote of 50% of the electorate assenting to the change, or 60% of those who vote subject to a turnout of at least 70%. It should also say that no further referendum on the same topic should take place for at least 5 years.
Any future vote must be sufficiently decisive that the matter can be resolved and the decided action taken.
But it won't happen because we'll carry on where a referendum could get a 25% turnout and a victory by 1 could decide an issue.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I don't think turnout should be a factor. A failure to vote is a declaration of indifference. It cannot be seen as anything else.
I could be tempted to say it should be more than a simple majority (of those who voted) for a major constitutional change, though.
I could be tempted to say it should be more than a simple majority (of those who voted) for a major constitutional change, though.
Although in the EU referendum, a small, but notable, proportion of the electorate was barred from voting, even though they are able to vote in general / local elections - specifically EU citizens, even if they had lived and worked here for decades.
I do think some notion of a minimum turnout and a majority threshold would be beneficial for matters of major national importance. You can't infer much from silence.
Indeed. Did people who didn't vote want Brexit or not? Nobody knows.
The franchise for the Referendum was the same as for a General Election. Only British, Irish, and Commonwealth citizens can vote in those.
EU citizens can vote in local and European elections in their country of residence, I’m not aware of any EU country extending that further.
I think it’s a fairly reasonable ask that if you want to influence a country by voting in its national elections, you commit to that country by gaining citizenship. Similarly I’m entirely comfortable with the current 15 year cutoff for votes by expatriates from this country. If you’ve not lived here for that length of time, should you really still get a say?
Bantamzen
Established Member
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
The problem with that argument is that we've long since created a situation where there was arguably very little point EU nationals going through the bureaucracy and expense involved in applying for citizenship, because - other than voting in national elections - it was prior to Brexit possible for them to permanently live in the UK and to have a legal status that was for all virtually all significant practical purposes equivalent to UK citizens. That means that an EU citizen who has lived here for a long time might feel and be completely committed to being part of the UK, without perceiving having any need to apply for citizenship. It's probably reasonable to say that, if those people want to vote in national elections for the UK Government, then they know what to do. But the referendum was somewhat different in the way it would impact on those people - and was also very much a one-off thing, not a regular thing that happens every few years. To me, it feels very wrong to deny long-term EU residents the right to vote in the referendum, in a way that doesn't feel wrong when it comes to national elections.
That logic seems eminently reasonable for national elections for a Government that has no jurisdiction over the places that expatriates currently live in. It seems a lot less reasonable when the vote is in a referendum whose results will affect those expatriates more than just about any other citizens - potentially (depending how Brexit might go) denying them the right to continue live in their long term adopted homes.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Literacy clearly isn't your strongpoint if you got "the EU is perfect" from what I said.
I note you're VERY quiet on my point about fishing, which showed you to be plain wrong. No comments? None at all? How bizarre.
No, I don't. No politicial institution is. It's impossible.
I think the relationship fundamentally works, both for us and the EU. We got a lot of free passes because of our clout, e.g. Schengen, the rebate. Things can always be improved, but sadly the Brexitists' solution is to park a Transit van full of Semtex under it.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Unlikely. We set up the European Court of Human Rights, and look how the Brexitists speak of that organisation.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Like all "strongmen" leaders, he's fundamentally weak and pathetic. Can't win by consensus, so wins through dirty tricks. See Orban and Putin for further details.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Because the far right funders of Brexit want democracy to be a one-off transaction.
It's straight from the totalitarian playbook.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
What's scary is how many people actually seem to believe it.
Paddy O'Doors
Member
- Joined
- 21 May 2013
- Messages
- 52
When people don't like the result of the vote and want you to keep voting until they get the result that they want.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
What, you mean like we do with general elections? What exactly is the problem with revisiting a decision based on changing evidence?
If the vote was "leave with WTO terms" at least it would be clear what was wanted. The key thing for a second vote is to make clear what type of Brexit is desired (with a further option of "I don't like any of the viable options, so remain", as that is the deadlock. Ideally it would be binding rather than advisory, with a ranked voting system so if the first choice option is rejected by the EU, the next one kicks in and so on.
Last edited:
Do you honestly believe that the result of the 2016 referendum was a clear, conclusive and unambiguous vote for leaving the EU with no deal in place, and that there is no chance whatsoever that more people might have been favour of leaving with a deal that kept us in the common market or customs union than not?
Paddy O'Doors
Member
- Joined
- 21 May 2013
- Messages
- 52
The difference here being that people are trying to overturn the result of the referendum before it's been implemented , nothing like a general election where you have the chance to vote for a change after several years of the result of the previous election being implemented.
Paddy O'Doors
Member
- Joined
- 21 May 2013
- Messages
- 52
Yes, the result was clearly in favour of leaving the EU.
I can only speak for myself but I voted to leave the EU and I'm not bothered if we leave without a "deal", just as long as we leave.
Paddy O'Doors
Member
- Joined
- 21 May 2013
- Messages
- 52
But that wouldn't be leaving would it.
Which is fine and you're entitled to your opinion. But why should your preference override those who want to leave with a deal? Not very democratic really if you think about it.
Yes, it would. None of Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein or Switzerland are members of the EU but they all trade freely with it.
SteveP29
Member
Until 2016, I'd estimate 80% of the population couldn't have given a flying f*** about the EU, except for Boris' ludicrous made up EU directives, bendy bananas and all that
No thought whatsoever to those that wish to remain in the UK then?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It wouldn't happen without a referendum (ha!)
Paddy O'Doors
Member
- Joined
- 21 May 2013
- Messages
- 52
That may well be, and I stand to be corrected on this, but don't they have to accept certain rules/conditions from the EU to be able to do so?
As you do with a trading relationship with any country.
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,180
When it's been implemented there's no turning back, not like an election which is a maximum of 5 years away.
That's why it's necessary to block Brexit at all costs, as no-one seems to know what's on the other side and I'd rather not find out that it's appalling. Now, admittedly, after we leave we may well sort out a future relationship which ultimately keeps us in the Single Market, the Customs Union and keeps freedom of movement which would be the best of a bad job; but I'd rather not take that chance.
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,180
Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are Single Market members and accept freedom of movement.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I would say that remark shows that you don't understand anything about the arguments for a referendum on the specific Brexit plan, and you just, apparently, want to keep insulting remainers without trying to understand the points they are making
The 2016 referendum was fundamentally flawed because it never defined what Brexit meant. It was like a referendum on 'should we move house? yes/no' without saying anything about where you would move to. The Government has, in effect, listened to the results of the referendum and spent 3 years trying to figure out a place we can move to. Now we have a couple of definite Brexit options, it's surely time for a referendum that says, in effect, here is the best option for where we could move to. Do you want to move there? If this referendum produces a result saying, 'yes, we do want to move' then, if it's arranged properly, we could get on and leave the EU very quickly after that. What's the problem that you don't like about that argument?
- Status