Should we have a second EU referendum?
Justine Greening has become the most senior Conservative MP to give her support to a second referendum on EU membership.
Would a second EU referendum be possible?
Here are some of the questions being asked about a possible new vote on Britain’s membership of the European Union and some of the questions being asked about a “People’s Vote”:
– Who else backs a second referendum?
The Liberal Democrats and Greens are demanding a vote on the final Brexit deal, with the option of remaining in the EU, along with campaign groups Best for Britain and People’s Vote and former political leaders like Tony Blair, Sir John Major, David Miliband, Nick Clegg and Lord Heseltine.
– What about Labour?
Jeremy Corbyn’s party is keeping its options open. Despite polls suggesting a majority of party members would back a second vote, Labour is not calling for one, though it has not ruled it out. Equally, the Scottish National Party, currently the third party in Westminster, has left the option of a referendum on the table.
– And what do Brexiters think of it?
Leavers’ standard response is to say the issue was settled with the 52%-48% vote in favour of Brexit in 2016. They say calls for a second referendum are just another example of the EU forcing voters to go back to the polls until they get the “right” result.
However, former Ukip leader Nigel Farage has flirted with the idea of a second poll, suggesting it might be necessary to “kill off” the idea of continued membership.
– And the Government?
Theresa May’s official spokesman says: “The British people have voted to leave the EU and there is not going to be a second referendum under any circumstances.”
– What do the polls tell us?
Over the past year, opinion surveys have fairly consistently shown voters think Britain made the wrong decision in 2016. But until recently this has not been matched by any appetite to re-run the referendum. Polls over the past few months appear to have shown a shift in opinion towards a decisive second vote.
– What would the question be?
This is the crucial issue. Remainers insist voters should be offered a choice between whatever deal the Government has secured and staying in the EU. Brexiters say the decision to leave has already been taken, so the ballot paper should offer the options of leaving under the Government deal or with no deal. Ms Greening wants to offer three options, with voters given first and second preferences.
– Would that settle the question at last?
Highly unlikely. Victory for Remain would leave Brexiters howling betrayal and leave huge numbers of voters feeling their views had been ignored. A vote for a no-deal departure would horrify Remainers and potentially cause panic in the business community.
The Government’s compromise deal might well be knocked out on the second count, even though it might have beaten either of the other options when second preferences were taken into account.
– So will a second referendum happen?
It’s very difficult to say. The decision may well lie in Jeremy Corbyn’s hands. If he is willing to whip his MPs to vote for one, it is quite possible that enough Tories would rebel to force Theresa May to accept it. But it is far from clear that the Labour leader is ready to accept a second vote. Much will depend on how public opinion moves in the face of open warfare within the Conservatives over the PM’s Chequers deal.
– And would the EU accept the result?
Brussels has repeatedly sent signals that it would be ready to discard Britain’s Article 50 letter if the UK changed its mind. However, Brexiters warn that the EU would demand concessions – such as an end to the British rebate or maybe even a promise to join the euro – in return for writing off the last two years of disruption over Brexit.
What are your views? Would you welcome a second chance to vote, or do you think this is totally uncalled for?
What are your views?
We'd love to hear your comments
Log in to comment
You need to be logged in to interact with Silversurfers. Please use the button below if you already have an account.
LoginNot a member?
You need to be a member to interact with Silversurfers. Joining is free and simple to do. Click the button below to join today!
JoinCommunity Terms & Conditions
Content standards
These content standards apply to any and all material which you contribute to our site (contributions), and to any interactive services associated with it.
You must comply with the spirit of the following standards as well as the letter. The standards apply to each part of any contribution as well as to its whole.
Contributions must:
be accurate (where they state facts); be genuinely held (where they state opinions); and comply with applicable law in the UK and in any country from which they are posted.
Contributions must not:
contain any material which is defamatory of any person; or contain any material which is obscene, offensive, hateful or inflammatory; or promote sexually explicit material; or promote violence; promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age; or infringe any copyright, database right or trade mark of any other person; or be likely to deceive any person; or be made in breach of any legal duty owed to a third party, such as a contractual duty or a duty of confidence; or promote any illegal activity; or be threatening, abuse or invade another’s privacy, or cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety; or be likely to harass, upset, embarrass, alarm or annoy any other person; or be used to impersonate any person, or to misrepresent your identity or affiliation with any person; or give the impression that they emanate from us, if this is not the case; or advocate, promote or assist any unlawful act such as (by way of example only) copyright infringement or computer misuse.
Nurturing a safe environment
Our Silversurfers community is designed to foster friendships, based on trust, honesty, integrity and loyalty and is underpinned by these values.
We don't tolerate swearing, and reserve the right to remove any posts which we feel may offend others... let's keep it friendly!
No one has ever suggested we have another poll because we didnt like the result.
The whole of government should be trying to help solve the way to get out of the EU ,like it or not. Its up to M P's to make it work as best as they can.
The way they are all arguing is never going to find a result. There is a Prime minister doing the job for heavens sake help her out instead of complaining.
We have one Boss get on with it properly
It is in the past, and now, what really matters, is the future of the UK.
We now know from both leavers and remainers that leaving EU membership with a fudged together half in half out agreement will be very bad for the future of the UK.
We now know from both leavers and remainers that leaving EU membership with no deal will be a disaster for the future of the UK.
In life we all make mistakes.
We normally realise and acknowledge our mistake and we then do the sensible thing. We admit we made a mistake, we say we have changed our mind and then we try to correct any damage we might have caused or will cause by hanging on to the first idea.
We do not hang on to the mistake and stubbornly say “that is what I have decided and I do not care what damage it does to me and anyone around me”.
Yes of course we should be asked to think again and vote again.
They have indicated that because of the delays caused by the UK protracted negotiations the next step which was postponed will be the federalisation and the tightening of the grip from one centre,[ not sure yet which centre this will be] To join up again, the UK will have to adhere and agree to this as part of a deal to come back into the fold
Its not right when people say no one new what they were voting for , l certainly knew what i was voting for because i voted not to go into what was then the common market back in 1972
International Trade Secretary Liam Fox has refused to back Chancellor Philip Hammond's warning that a "no-deal" Brexit could damage the economy.
Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr show, he said: "This idea that we can predict what our borrowing would be 15 years in advance is just a bit hard to swallow."
Treasury analysis estimates that by 2033 borrowing would be around £80bn a year higher under a "no-deal" scenario.
It also forecasts no deal could mean a 7.7% hit to GDP over the next 15 years.
The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) has been meeting in Geneva, Switzerland. It has been assessing how well the UK government is sticking to its obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People, which the UK government ratified in 2009. The UNCRPD has been hearing evidence from disabled people’s organisations (DPOs), charities, and NGOs. But it has also been hearing counter-arguments from the UK government.
And the UNCRPD was unequivocal in its opinion on how disabled people are treated by the Conservative government. Its Chair, Theresia Degener, said in a statement seen by The Canary:
Evidence before us now and in our inquiry procedure as published in our 2016 report reveals that [welfare] cut policies [have] led to human catastrophe in your country, totally neglecting the vulnerable situation people with disabilities find themselves in.
Can you explain why it is considered acceptable to reverse the democratic vote of 1975.... but it would not be considered acceptable to reverse the democratic vote of 2016.
Taking that view into account, Can I assume you would not object to there being another referendum before 29th March 2019.
The Referenda arranged over the years have proven to have been flawed in the extreme .The so called United Kingdom , if it is to be relevant in today’s society must reflect the opinions of its four partners and not the population distribution that currently exists .A valid Referendum must follow electoral law as must the pertaining parties . Despite your pal Yodama listing numerous expenditure details , she and so many others fail to appreciate that we are talking monies expended within the electoral period and NOT that outwith . The “Black Money “ pumped in by the Tory supporting Northern Irish religious bigots to the Leave campaign as with rest of the Tory “ Black Monies “ covered up by May and her third rate cronies must be accounted for ! It is now clear that fragile foundations of the Brexiteers has crumbled away .We have benefitted from our European associations and could still do so - let sanity prevail !
We had the first referendum in 1975 and 67% of the voting population voted to join the EU.
Referendum 2. 2016
We had the second referendum in 2016 and 47% of the voting population voted to leave the EU.
I agree with you, having a second referendum, as we did in June 2016, makes a mockery of the whole voting system. It seems that the leavers got their way in 2016 and managed to overturn the democratic referendum result of 1975.
But I suppose it does not matter because whatever way you look at it, the democratic result of 1975 was overturned in 2016.
.
Sweaty Raab !
He kept trying to sound upbeat about it, but his nerves gave him away. As the press conference wore on, Dominic Raab started to come across like some kind of deranged flight steward, insisting that in the "unlikely scenario" of no-deal, everything would be fine. The plane would hit the water smoothly, just like in those cartoons they put on the safety leaflets, and then happy families would slide down into the inflatable rafts.
Drunken behaviour of the most senior of the Brussels junta.
What will happen to the rest of the EU when the large contribution made by the UK to the EU finishes.
Federalisation to come from not Brussels or Strasbourg but from Berlin.
Enjoy your Volkesbrodt and Bratvoirst.
.
Nothing will happen to the rest of the EU when UK contributions end. Unlike the UK, the EU has spent the past 2 years adjusting its financial future for post Brexit.
.
And where is your evidence that the EU is collapsing?
The UK represents under 13% of EU membership leaving 87% who will remain in membership when we leave the EU.
Realistically our 13% may cause a short ripple for the remaining 87%, but it will quickly pass and they will move on.
Director General Joachim Lang of the BDI (the equivalent of our CBI) recently said that both sides must move more quickly and the UK must accept a compromise.
The Sun, The Express and The Telegraph have all pushed this unsubstantiated story because it matches the very sad obsession they all have of vilifying the EU, and all of the people who work in the organisation.
Maybe we should ask an MEP to comment about an acceptable level of alcohol intake before attending a meeting. Nigel Farage would be a good person to ask as he makes no secret about his alcohol intake.
The problem is that Nigel has the worst meeting attendance record out of all 746 MEP’s. So that would not work.
Churchill made no secret of his daily alcohol intake and alcohol dependence. A recent article described it as an "Epic Drinking Regimen”
The same Daily Mail newspaper that claimed in May 2017, just days before the last election, that the Labour Party Leaders are “Apologists for Terror”. An outrageous and contemptable headline.
The Daily Mail has no hesitation in demeaning and ridiculing anyone or anything that does fit their own distorted view of society.
I have nothing but contempt for The Daily Mail and the newspapers within the group.
I was going to finish by saying something positive about The Metro and The Daily Mail, but after a lot of thought, nothing came to mind.
OK try "Carry on Brussels " and please don't say it is all fabrication.
Jokesville should be shut down...........NOW.
Jokesville is how a certain MEP described that institution.
Translation: , it is another vacuous quote stuffed full of empty rhetoric, designed to lull you into believing that we actually know what we're doing.
In his own words, he said he had not been able to differentiate between his cabinet responsibilities and his private life.
Are we really expected to listen and believe anything he says?
If indeed you believe the vote has “ been scrutinised to death “and the “ vote is done “ then the obvious awaits .
This will mean that this deficiency will have to be made up by the remainig member states, and that is sending shock waves through those on the gravy train.
No doubt the Remoaners will argue that this cannot be true, well just wait and see if this could see a break up starting with the Med area.
£350M for NHS
Immigration will go down
UK will be better off
Easy trade deals
Turkey are joining the EU
Brexit hurts the EU more than us
Things Brexiters do say now:
UK might be ok in 50 years
It won’t be Armageddon
Remoaners are to blame
” We “ are all right “, “ You” are all wrong - heads I win tails you lose. A total failure to answer any of the points put forward - particularly the scandal over “ dark money “ and the DUP . Let me refresh your analytical mind and trust you can come back with an answer :
“ Just how much the DUP spent on Brexit remains to be seen. But the Electoral Commission have already let slip something surprising: it’s more than £250,000. And the most obvious reason that a relatively small party had so much to spend on this campaign? Because political donations in Northern Ireland are kept secret “
European Union countries are no longer at loggerheads like they were in the past. With the exception of civil war in Yugoslavia (which wasn't in the EU at the time), Europe has managed to heal the divisions which were so painfully exposed in the two World Wars in the Twentieth Century. The EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 for helping to promote peace and international cooperation. Many Eastern European countries are keen to join the EU because they feel it will help promote economic and political stability.Your reference to Hitler and a right wing threat nearly made me choke on my porridge ! The present set up within the fragmenting Tory Party makes even the insipid UKIPers look like left wing extremists !
Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a' that,)
That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth,
Shall bear the gree, an' a' that
Or did they not anticipate this?
Ya boo politicts at its very best !!
Wow, things really are getting desperate now.
Democracy is at stake, go with the decision made or " all bets are off"!
Are you saying that it would be democratic to deny the democratic rights of the voting citizens of the UK?
Have I understood what you are saying?
It may be that we would still vote to leave. If that was to happen we could be like Farage and say that we must all accept the decision whatever it is. Admittedly he went back on that a couple of days later.
I can understand why a majority of voters who voted, voted yes to leave. Two Conservative Goverments( con/liberal. Conservative ), 8yrs of Austerity. Which a lot of people blamed on the E.U. THE CRASH was caused by very cheap credit and Goverment's all over the world U.S.A/EUROPE having light touch regulation. The BANKERS TOOK THIS TO MEAN THEY COULD DO ANYTHING THEY WANTED WITHOUT CONCEQUENCES AND THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT TAKING THEIR PLATIUM PENSIONS WITH THEM. WE/US PAID FOR THEIR GREED and AVARIS. AND MARK MY WORDS THEY WILL DO IT AGAIN AS THEY NEVER HAD TO STAND UP AND TAKE RESPONCIBILITY FOR WHAT THEY DID.
DO WE AS A COUNTRY WANT TO BE AT THE MERCY OF DONALD TRUMP AND A TRADE DEAL NEGOGAITED BY HIM(he has started a trade war with China+E.U) I know the E.U HAS AN AWFUL LOT OF FAULTS AND NEEDS TOTAL REFORM. SO THAT IT's THE people of the E.U WHO MAKE THE DECISIONS THAT EFFECT THEIR EVERYDAY LIVES. NOT THE BEAUROCRATS WHO ARE IN CHARGE NOW. THE E.U WITH IT'S MOUNTAIN OF FAULTS HAS KEPT THE EUROPEAN CONTINENT AT PEACE FOR 70yrs. The countries that are in the E.U CAUSED TWO WORLD WARS IN THE SPACE OF 27yrs in the early half of the 20th centuary. THE FAR RIGHT IS ON THE RISE WORLD WIDE. IF YOU KNOW YOUR HISTORY YOU WILL REALISE THIS IS A REPEAT OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN EUROPE IN THE 1930'S THE WORLD WAS GOMING OUT OF THE BIGGEST RECESSION THE WORLD HAD EVER SEEN. SOUND FAMILIAR ??? This is a very dangerous time for all of us. Do we really want to be on the outside if DONALD TRUMP decides to PRESS THE NUCLEAR BUTTON(WE WOULD BE NAIVE TO THINK HE WOULDN'T AS HE IS THE MOST UNSTABLE PRESIDENT THE U.S.A HAS EVER HAD) THE WORLD HAS NOT BEEN SO UNSAFE SINCE 1339. IF WE DON'T KNOW OUR HISTORY WE ARE DAMMED TO REPEAT IT.
LEAVING THE E.U IS NOT JUST ABOUT BEING ABLE TO TRADE WORLDWIDE, IT'S ABOUT AN AWFUL LOT THINGS THAT KEEP US IN A WORLD AT PEACE FOR 73yrs. So if we get to vote again or get to vote on the deal for leaving. Please think about what is really going on that the MAJORITY OF US NEVER SEE. NANA SUZIE
Can anyone tell me what would happen if we leave EU and then realise that leaving was the wrong decision.
A) Can we vote to rejoin the EU
0r
B) We can never vote to rejoin the EU.
This may involve losing the shirt off one's back.
So there it is if we have another referendum I expect the majority of l4avers just like me to vote remain.
Stop and think about what democracy really entails,.
It is not a word that sits easily with the EEC.
Blackmail, trade offs,old boy networks, biased incentives etc. etc.,and federalisation which is the next avowed step.
This is the EEC version of democracy ??
Claud Juncker.......old boy network, no vote on this one.
Blackmail, biased incentives...............Greek airforce/navy
Federalisation.......sorry unable to obtain copy of the white paper published by the EU. Freedom of information does not apply on this apparently.
The reconstruction of Europe after the war produced some very strong and clear thinking political leaders. Winston Churchill was one of the clearest thinking people of his time.
I did not write the following. It simply outlines a speech Winston Churchill made in 1946.
Following the Second World War, he was convinced that only a united Europe could guarantee peace. His aim was to eliminate the European ills of nationalism and war-mongering once and for all. He formulated his conclusions drawn from the lessons of history in his famous ‘Speech to the academic youth’ held at the University of Zurich in 1946: “There is a remedy which ... would in a few years make all Europe ... free and ... happy. It is to re-create the European family, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe.”
I am saying that now we have a lot more information about the advantages and disadvantages of remaining or leaving another Democratic vote would be the next logical step.
Politicians need to be very careful when arguing with that type of voter; they're people of conviction, unlike most Westminster hirelings.
He lied!
If Democracy had stopped in 1975 when we voted to remain in the EU, then, of course, we would not have had a referendum vote June 2016.
Democracy only works properly when voters have enough information to be able to make a balanced decision. We did not have that information. In the 2016 referendum, both sides were appalling. Both sides told lies, both sides made false promises and in the ensuing chaos, no one was sure what the future might look like for the UK.
But what we are getting now, is the reality of what it will mean to the UK if we stay in membership of the EU and what it will really mean to the UK if we are not in membership of the EU.
Our individual responsibility now, is to make sure that we listen to what we are being told. There is a lot of information out there and it is coming from the government, industry, political parties, social media, TV, radio, newspapers, family, friends and of course Silversurfers.
The other 27 EU member countries have all said that if we want more time to think about staying in EU membership or leaving EU membership they will give us that time.
And now that we can be better informed and we can take a properly informed view of what would be best for the UK then logically we should vote again.
But since Silversurfers is a place to exchange opinions, can you answer the two following questions.
What has the UK membership of the EU, meant for most people?
What would have been better for the UK if we had not joined the EU?
If that is the case, and from you post I cannot see how it can be other, then this is no democracy at all! Allow me to inform you ... and here I quote the British Constitution Group.
'The Recognition of the 1215 Great Charter Magna Carta as comprising the single and sole legal and lawful English (and British) Constitution; the permanent supreme treaty between the people and the successive incumbent heads of state.' This document was not enacted by a parliament and therefore cannot be altered or repealed by a parliament. But is has largely been superseded by mainly Labour governments.
'Common Law economic measures are a natural corollary to the above item for specifically proscribing the Common Law Crimes of Usury and fraudulent Fractional Reserve Lending and returning to the People (through a national government department; treasury) the duty of issuance of interest-free currency and credit to the economy.' Mmmm. Fractional Reserve Lending. Isn't this what caused, if only in part, the 2008 bank crisis?
'Unpatriotic politicians, all of them, must be identified for what they are. People need to see the advantages and benefits which will accrue to the people and nation by isolating and leaving those parties who do not stand for our cherished heritage of the 1215 Great Charter of English Liberties (applicable presently to all the U.K. nations); of Trial by Jury Courts for all causes (not the ex party trial-by-judge); of the Common Law Principle of Equal Justice, laws applying equally to all.' Hello, that's both the Upper Chamber and the Commons this year!
Let's move on a little. Under the Declaration of Rights 1689 it states ... 'no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.'
Find an excuse for the increasing EU dominance of this proud nation. I'd be really interested to hear what you have to say. Oh, and it also says, 'Habeas corpus is not to be denied.' Yes really. Yet there have been strong moves to implement to Napoleonic Code here denying Habeas Corpus to all.
It also says free men cannot be imprisoned without cause and yet this Prime Minster, when Home Secretary, signed us into the European Arrest Warrant which of it very essence is in utter contradiction to our laws - laws which are not for any subsequent parliament to repeal because they are in perpetuity.
RoofTop, if you follow up the pointers I've given, and they are but a few of those available, you'll see your so vaunted democracy is no democracy at all.
I await your reply.
What you say is very admirable, but totally out of touch with how our society works today.
The 19th and 20th century created in the UK an extarordinary society with free education, free healthcare and a social welfare sytem that is amomgst the best in the world. Yes I know it has faults and occasionaly it fails, but most of the time it works very well.
.
All of this works because the country is wealthy enough to be able to fund our modern day society. The money comes from direct and indirect taxation and by being in the largest and most successful free trade area in the world.
The system is managed for the people by parliamentary representation and the occasioanl referendum.
Now we are faced with a refendum result that both remainers and leavers recognise will leave the country with less money and individually all of us will be poorer.
Many people will find that acceptable because we will no longer have to agree to EU rules and structures. Rules and structures that we agreed to in 1975.
Other people believe that the financial price of leaving the EU is so high and will cause so much damage to our modern day society that we should remain.
PS.
I note that YouGov reports that the majority of the public would like another referndum on remaining in the EU.
You failed to acknowledge the gravity of my points and waffled on about this and that. Please address this first salvo regarding English Law and Constitution. By the way, there's much more to come.
Mention of Constitution opens up a very complex and very historic discussion. Most of the discussions surround the fact that Britain does not have a written constitution, but then you know that.
What Britain has is an historic accumulation of various statutes, conventions, judicial decisions and treaties.
I think that Parliamentary sovereignty is as close as we get to a constitution. Hence the call for parliament to be able to make the final decision on leaving the EU.
The imbalanced and fractured society you describe does not exist.
You only have to look at the articles, services and reader contributions on the Silversurfers website to know we are all living in a society that is fundamentally balanced and fair.
Outside of Silversurfers consider for a moment the work people put into the NHS and Social care, consider the free time and effort people put into community and charity work. We live in a society where people care for each other.
It makes me very sad to read what you have said today. I could not be further from the truth, I was going to write more and dispute what you have written, but I suspect that nothing will change your mind.
I will not reply to you again.
It makes me very sad to read what you have said today. You could not be further from the truth. I was going to write more and dispute what you have written, but I suspect that nothing will change your mind.
England does have a written constitution. Unlike the States it's not contained in one document but rather several which were written over many centuries to accommodate an evolving nation.
It begins around 800AD with Alfred the Great compiling a book of law, much of it based on the Ten Commandments and the Levitical Code. It's known as the Liber Judicialis. It is the basis of English Common Law.
1215 saw Magna Carta. Perhaps the most pertinent clause today is our duty to step in and require the Monarch to uphold their contract with the people. Sovereignty lies with the people and the Monarch is bound by that oath to hold an out-of-control government to account. Mmmm. Elizabeth's record doesn't look so good here.
The next is the First Statute of Westminster. 1275. Perhaps the most important clause for us to day is, 'elections are to be free, and no man is by force, malice or menace, to disturb them.' Think on Blair and company.
The next is an amalgam off two written declaration almost a century apart, each designed to reign in the power of Parliament. The Declaration of Right and the Bill of Rights.
They state clearly no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.
Therefore the imposition of subjugation to the EU is constitutionally illegal and ... our present monarch, in signing into law such subjugation has acted against her coronation oath. Grave stuff Rooftop, but there's more.
The right to bear arms ... really?
The right to petition the Sovereign...how many know about that?
Free men cannot be imprisoned without cause ... but they are.
The Government cannot arrest any man because he disagrees with the Government’s policies ... Blair's outfit did this on numerous occasions.
Habeas corpus is not to be denied ... Ah, here we have trapped 2 prime minsters and a Home Secretary. Both Blair and Brown wanted to impose the Napoleonic code upon us whereby Habeas Corpus is denied. There May signed into law the European arrest warrant, remember? She denied us our historic right of Habeas Corpus.
These documents were not approved by parliament but by the monarch of the times. They stand in law in perpetuity. They may not be changed. You may notice Parliamentary sovereignty is not mentioned. That's because it doesn't exist. The people are sovereign, parliament is but a servant of the people. What a refreshing concept that is, and so old!
I did not write the following, it comes from one of the universities where students study the social and legal structure Britain.
…..
At present in Britain we have no written constitution, but instead a collection of laws and customs which govern our political system. Along with Israel, we are one of only two democracies in the world not to have a written constitution.
Trouble's a' coming.
I was working on farms in North Yorkshire when the shipyards closed, steel works closed and the coal mines as well. The devastation these acts of economic and political vandalism caused needed to be seen to be believed. Men breaking down in tears in the street ...families ripped asunder by poverty and loss of identity because there was no alternative work. Some men met and talked with me. Sheer hopelessness. Many never worked again.
I was in farming before the EU took a stranglehold on it. Although wages were lower than in other industries we got the life we craved. Piece by very painful piece I witnessed experienced middle aged men thrown off the farms, evicted from their tied cottages and left to rot in a town. Piece by piece the fertile soils of the Vale of York, and other surrounding areas, were 'set aside.' That was, and remains, a crime. A betrayal.
The EU's CAP paid bug subsidies according to the acreage farmed, not, as under the British system, the amount produced. Hence laying aside 3,000 acres was more profitable than farming it, and men were laid off. The Fens, near my birth place, once a producer of vast quantities of fruit and veg now majors on cereals. Jorid, that such highly fertile peat based land should be laid waste with cereals is a crime, another betrayal. But that's the EU!
Once out, and the sooner the better for me, British farmers must justify their existence by producing all they can, cereals, fruit, veg ... and in the face of militant veganism, much more meat, poultry and dairy products.
The CAP has been a raging success for land owners, but an absolute disaster for farmers.
Point by point...
You must understand that the bus slogan that the NHS would benefit by £350 million a week was related to what the UK pays into the EU, and what we would save – which could then (when we leave) be spent on the NHS.
Leave EU was not the only organisation to overspend...it was rightly fined £61,000; however, the Liberal Democrats were fined £18,000 for breaking spending rules in the EU referendum (and they were pro-Europe, yet we hear little about that). And the (also pro-Europe) European Movement UK's return for the EU referendum was deemed "incomplete and inaccurate" and was fined £8,750.
With regard to Russian involvement...people must be stupid to believe without question everything they read or see on social media; perhaps they should make the effort to do a little research to check on accuracy before jumping on bandwagons and blaming other countries for the result of what was a democratic process in the UK.
The Good Friday agreement would only be in danger if both sides are intransigent. Which, as we are talking about nationalists and unionists, catholics and protestants, and longstanding enmities, could be the case.
I actually agree that Mrs May has not been clear about what her government intends...but as not only the Remainers in the Commons (some of whom are not representing the wishes of their constituents) and the unelected House of Lords, many of whom are failed politicians with vested interests, but also a large proportion of the civil service seem to be doing their best to scuttle anything she puts forward, I actually feel very sorry for her. It is her own fault for the atrocious general election campaign she ran, but she seems to be trying to deliver what was voted for in June 2016.
I don't understand why there should be a loss of EU doctors and nurses ... the UK would be sure to recruit to the NHS – hopefully the brightest and the best from any country.
The UK has possibly the best multi-cultural society in the world. We have always welcomed those who wish to contribute to the country and helped those who are in desperate need. That won't change.
Our relationship with the President of the USA is not relevant to the Brexit discussion.
As to the tiny margin between in and out votes, may I point you to the very small percentages by which some recent general elections have been decided. I for one really did not want Mr Blair the first time he was voted in, let alone the second of third. As you say, the UK voted for Brexit by 52% to 48%, from a turnout of just over 72% of voters. In 1997 Tony Blair was disastrously elected as our Prime Minister winning 43.2% of the votes from a turnout of 71.4%, so not even a majority of those who voted actually wanted him – but we did not demand a re-election. In 2001, Labour won only 40.7% from a turnout of only 59.4%. Again, a minority, but no re-election. And in 2005, they only won by 35.2% from a turnout of 61.4%. In 2010, God help us, we got the coalition from a slightly higher turnout of 65.1%. And in 2015, the Tories won 36.9% of the votes.
My point here is that in a democracy, the majority vote wins and we should not re-run an election just because we don't like the first result.
I've not posted on this thread so far because of a genuine family tragedy - a parent should not ever have to bury their off spring. Enough of that.
If we voters believe only what we are fed then food poisoning will result. And it has. In terms of the referendum, we are at the vomiting stage I think. The worst is yet to come.
Yet the people voted against remaining in the EU, as you so rightly point out by a greater margin than many recent elections. I've yet to understand how the Blair-child got re-elected twice.
Having spent much of my life in farming my stance against the EU is visceral. So much land is laid to waste, so many farm jobs closed that I can barely understand what the hell is going on. We went from a time of produce all you can, we need it all to a 7,000 acre group of farms I worked on setting aside 3,000 acres! Yes, it was made more profitable for them to do that. Without quoting Michael Caine, nobody knows that!
I fully accept your points, but there was, and is, a practical side. What we don't grow we import, at cost.
Perhaps that was de Gaulle's last gift to England, a word in repayment for the liberation of France.
On top of that , there was only a tiny margin between the original votes not a landslide ( 48 : 52 )
So I'd say the question should be
WHY WOULDN"T YOU HAVE
A SECOND REFERENDUM ?
A few months ago I picked up a copy of a most wanted read: Neil Postman's 1985 book about his television age that was nearly prophetic about our computer/phone/texting/gaming age. It’s called Amusing Ourselves to Death. Postman's thesis is that our society was more in danger of fulfilling the dystopian vision of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World than George Orwell’s 1984, and makes a powerful case.
Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppressive regime. Huxley, however, sees no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their inherited freedoms, society and history. People will love their oppression, adore the technologies which deliver a perceived security of food and entertainment.
Orwell feared those who would ban books. Huxley feared that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.
In Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever watchful to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure!
Would you not agree, Yodama, the bulk of UK people are drowning in a level of greedy pleasure of such proportions even our grand parents could conceive? That the fear of being deprived of their foodstuffs and distractions fuelled Project Fear in all it's guises. From my remote outpost it looks to me to be the case; people are more feared of their 'lifestyle' being inhibited than the wider picture of domination by a foreign power. They live for today and beggar tomorrow!
Or perhaps both Orwell's and Huxley's visions are at work here.
What do you think?
And I thank you also for the accolade of eloquence. I had't quite thought of it that way
We need a deal if we leave. Having No Deal would ruin the economy and jobs.
Also if we had another referendum, remember what happened to Ireland when they said "no" to one some years ago. The second one, which was held because of this refusal, resulted in what the EU wanted, a "yes". If the first result had been a "yes" do you think that the EU would have held another one ?
It is like saying you do not agree with the Cup Final result, so it should be played again so you can win this time.
Career politicians have lost people's trust. Let's get people in power who understand an industry or service, people who don't need to make a well provided for career off the back of some very dubious political decisions and infighting.
I think you are being unduly optimistic.
A second referendum might not sit well with the principals of democracy so my view is that any second referendum should be directed to a vote on the deal offered. If the deal isn't good enough then we have to choose whether we stay or remain and the conditions of any 'stay' would need to reflect our existing terms and conditions i.e. not be worse
I don't think anyone believes the EU can survive in its current format but as a trading block it offers many benefits so it needs change if it is to survive. Change is far easier to control from within and leaving the EU will prohibit that process for sure.
If every citizen had voted the result then would have been more democratic. It seems that a lot of younger people had not, or been able to register to vote and blame the "Silver " generation for voting leave.
I originally voted to join a trading organisation not the complicated present EU.
Dear Dave was sent home with a flea in his ear, and a refusal by the EU Junta to even discuss his proposal.
This infuriated so many of the cabinet it then became the start of a proper plan to leave the EU.
If blame is to be pointed at someone for the farce which is with us at the moment, it has to be with the EU for refusing to even listen to David Cameron.
If certain European countries and their EU staff are on the "gravy train" why should they want to change anything ??
It seems that only the UK who have been double "stitched up" by the EEC rules and regulations want to see change.
Where will it end.
In early 2016, Darren Grimes, a 21-year-old fashion student from Durham, set up a social media campaign to encourage young people to vote to leave the European Union. “BeLeave” raised the princely sum of £21.51 in three months.
Then, in the two weeks before the Brexit referendum, Grimes received a series of massive donations, including £625,000 from the Vote Leave campaign. This money, it was subsequently discovered, was paid directly to a Canadian data analytics firm called Aggregate IQ. It was never even resting in the young student’s account.
On Tuesday, the UK’s elections watchdog reported Grimes and a senior Vote Leave executive to the police. In a stinging report, the Electoral Commission found that Vote Leave had broken the law by failing to include Grimes’s spending in their return.
The official Leave campaign breached spending limits by almost half a million pounds. That’s a significant amount in British politics, especially in a knife-edge referendum like Brexit.
The following are demonstrable facts not opinions:
- Since the referendum non-EU immigration has increased.
- Since the referendum prices have risen.
- The government's forecasts are that everyone will be worse off outside the EU.
- The Tory party refused to implement the standard EU restrictions on free movement which could have controlled EU migration.
- Many major services organisations have moved high earning staff out of the UK or have made plans to do so.
- The NHS is struggling to replace the EU staff who have moved away.
All of the above were called scaremongering when they were warned about. What are they called now they have actually happened?
I suspect most of your information has come from the Daily Mail or similar unreliable sources.
I despair with the sad delusions of those who stick by their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I really thought such attitudes were the preserve of flat-earthers.
The Government are just trying to wriggle out of their responsibility as so many of them want to stay.
What was the point of the referendum if they weren't going to act on it ?
Or maybe it is the same decline that created one of the best health services in the world and is free at the point of delivery.
Then again it might be the same decline that has given us one of the lowest levels of unemployment in the EU.
If it were why didn't Cameron also fund £9.3 million for a Leave booklet, so as not to queer the pitch?
I don't see another vote on EU membership as being decisive - it will be as rigged as the last one, that's the nature of our 21C democracy, keeping pace with scandalous African dictatorships.
If you look at those shouting for a second referendum the fall into three groups:
The absolute remainers who would keep having another until they get the result they want,
The politicians who have failed and been side-lined who are out for revenge,
Those with political or fiscal second agenda that will benefit them alone.
At the risk of repeating my self, those who have disdained the voters may find themselves discarded by voters and/or party.
If today was a Second World War scenario we would be talking about a powerful and vocal fifth column in our political sphere. Had that then been the case I think we would all now be speaking German.
My father, who was a dedicated Labour supporter for all of his life, would be disgusted by the current crop. A puppet leader controlled by Marxist infiltrators who would use Labour as a flea uses a dog. I remember similar types and the way they treated ''dilutees'', that gives away my age, Ha Ha.
Stay well my friend, I enjoy reading your comments.
More of a political onlooker than anything else.
But 55 years of watching the soap opera which is British politics with people dying mysteriously - Gaitskill was the first I knew of- others holding high office in an alcoholic stupor - George Brown - raging egos clawing their way to the top in so many layers of deception they forgot their lines - Tony Blair - John Major's insistence he new what was best for Britain when even his M.Ps knew otherwise and guess what, a Tiller Girl as the Speaker of the House - Betty Boothroyd.
You just couldn't write this stuff, let alone sell it to a TV company for production!
And this latest bowl of sour grapes, Brexit ... well, everyone's teeth are on edge right now, no matter their stance. It's easier to read War and Peace in one very long sitting in the Doctor's surgery than believe what's happening now.
Hey Ho! Who can ever say politics is dull? Better than most TV programmes these days. It's Dallas and Dysentery, Peyton Place and South Park with comedy to spare. But still I have a British Passport, Oh, it's an EU passport now!
Sour grapes must have existed between the ladies, so in Parliament the way to get your own back is to suddenly take an opposing stance. JG is playing ducks and drakes.
As an aside, a friend who is a theatre manager had to try and support her Spanish theatre nurses who were told by patients to f...k off home the day after the vote! I don't believe either side expected that kind of behaviour even if it was a minority who were responsible.
Your comment about the treatment of the nurses is appalling. Some people can be so horrible.
The NHS is crumbling, not because of non- British people using it, but because it has become a victim of its own success. UK citizens expect the impossible for 'free', regardless of cost and I am a firm believer that leaving the EU will not improve the situation.
It is two years since the referendum and in that time 1.2 million people in the UK have died. The voting demographics of the 2106 referendum say that that should there be a referendum now, the percentage would be around 52% to remain and 48% to leave.
I, however, would still Vote the same and now would have no doubts whatever.
Since older people are more likely to die than younger people and people are reaching voting age faster than people are dying you would get a change in the result if you were to hold the referendum again.
Have a look on the yougov website.
Most polls now tell us that many, many "leave" voters realise how damaging it will be if we leave the EU and given another vote, they would vote to stay.
Only by having another referendum on the terms of leaving can we truly know what we are voting for.
If we voted to leave then there is no turning back, if we vote to stay then people have voted on what the terms of the deal is and have taken everything into consideration.
Until everybody ( Parliament & EU ) has agreed the detail of what these terms are, then we are all as much in the dark now then when we voted in 2016 on what it means to each and every one of us and the cost to us individually and our country.
The conservative party have sat on their backsides for two years and thought a battle amongst themselves and have had no unity. It has been more about certain individuals trying to gain power & leadership. The Labour party have been just as bad as they sit on the fence and wait for a chance of another general election without saying nothing or little at best.
When we were asked to vote we were being asked to vote blindly without knowing the full truth, full facts and figures. Both sides continually lied about all of this throughout the campaign and nobody could have know what the true cost to the public would be.
I had meant to say that everyone had their own reasons for wanting to leave, some very sound, some not so sound, some very emotional, some very objective.
Some voted leave to get the vast amounts for the NHS which Boris's bus promised, which the Chancellor has said doesn't exist. Some voted leave to stop immigration, but the total number coming into the country including those from outside the EU, which the Government could control now if it chose to, continues to rise. Some voted to return to Parliamentary democracy, but Mrs May seems determined to get government by government ministers and Whitehall mandarins.
Did anyone vote leave so that their job would be exported to the continent or the Far East, which the financial institutions are already doing, and the major multi-national manufacturing companies are now telling us will happen?
Will those who voted Leave and whose job is exported be happy to work in a Care Home or picking vegetables for the minimum wage to replace the EU workers who are no longer admitted?
When people voted Leave they did so because of a lot of different promises, most of which are now seen to be pie in the sky, and without knowing what terms would result from the negotiations with the EU.
When people know what voting leave will actually mean, then they should have a chance to vote for what they will get, rather than what they hoped for!
a) in the small print of the Referendum Bill, the result would be "considered" by the government, it was not legally binding. However the government chose to implement the decision. It is now irrevocable because it has passed a Bill to leave the EU. That can only be amended or rescinded by passing another Bill.
b) KatePg - I think you are a victim of "false news" or predictive scaremongering. Job losses - employment is currently higher than it has ever been, falling £ - the £ has remained fairly stable over the past 2 years, medicines & cancer drugs at risk because they are sourced through EU agreements - absolute rubbish, crops rotting in the fields because there's no one to pick them - if there has been an exodus of East Europeans it hasn't been big enough to affect harvests, lack of resolution about the Irish border & Gibralter - not our fault, loss of ability to move across the EU without problems - so? no problems, we go back to the old system of visas, lack of certainty for British citizens living in the EU - absolutely not true. My sister has lived in Brussels for the past 40 years working in, of all places, the EU Commission. She has now retired and lives there in perfect confidence.
The reasons that the majority voted to leave in the first place is because the "Common Market" has changed. It has turned into a bureucratic monster. What started out as a tariff-free trading bloc has turned into the "United States of Europe". I voted to leave because it objected to being ruled by a load of unelected bureaucrats in another country. We do not need another level of very expensive bureaucracy!!
Many voters wanted (quite rightly) to show their opinion of the "ruling elite" whose policies had let them down so badly; policies most of which, incidentally, emanated from Westminster, not Brussels.
Unfortunately, their decision has delivered them wholesale into the very hands from which they were trying to escape.
Remember that the referendum itself was only called in an effort to preserve the cohesion of the Tory party in the face of losing votes to UKIP.
Unintended consequences writ large, Mr Cameron?
Why would a second vote be more valid than the first ?
We were told that whatever the decision , it would be implemented and that's what they should do ...democracy dictates that the majority gets the decision and that's exactly what's at stake here ( I did not vote for the government but I accept the majority did and we live with it for the full term ..)
The best way forward is to stop the foot stamping and name calling and unite to move forward and accept the challenge to make a successful future ..
I could go on. It's madness!
.
New Term in September, new school uniforms and new opportunities being offered...
Including all the " larfs" Mr D Trump trumpets daily, what pleasure to enjoy his magnificent ego in charge of his importance! The joy of his ineptitude as a Politician and even less competence as a Diplomat is marvellous to witness...this makes the EU and GB as the Biscuite..yes, M.Garnier we know you want to dunk us in your cafe au lait..
Blessed Theresa,
End of school report
She voted to remain in the EU, now she is so confused, as we are. It would be helpful if she could abstain...and have a good rest with her feet above her head, and enjoy a cold flannel. We'll talk about it later, and then later, and after that....
The terminology used in the White Paper is vague and open to interpretation and could mean we are, in effect, still tied to the EU. This is all designed to keep a small group of 12 MPs from Northern Ireland happy (the DUP members) so that there is no "hard border".
This is not our doing, this is down to the EU's attitudes and restrictive practices and it is they who should be finding a way around this problem, not us!
I want to see this White Paper thrown out. What takes its place? Some say chaos but it could signal the beginning of "no deal" which is what I predicted 2 years ago. The problem is that the EU don't want us to leave. They need our money!!!
What sort of organisation when faced with a drop in income of 15 % (our contributions) actually plans to enlarge itself and face funding a "European Defence Force"? An organisation that has no audited budget and no transparency in its finances. One that I certainly wouldn't join.
The British public were asked a question and gave their reply. I am furious at the repeated attempts to derail the process of quitting the EU. The over-riding concern I have now is that the White Paper is not one which has been produced by the DEEU but by a Cabinet sub-committee and hence the recommendation has not come from those entrusted to negotiate but a small group with vested interests who have played no part in previous negotiations.
The entire process has been one of supplication and subservience to the EU bureaucracy. There has been very little negotiation but simply a list of demands by the EU side and a lack of knowledge and experience by the UK side in how to conduct negotiations.
All that brexit will achieve (particularly a hard version) is to put us all at the mercy of such people. Oh and I expect that Mr. Farage will make a bob or two along the line as well.
The SNP MPs (I make the distinction because the FM has no vote in Westminster) voted against Sunday Trading Laws as the changes would not only directly affect England and Wales, but would indirectly affect Scotland : if the laws are liberalised south of the border, then the overtime wages that Scottish workers enjoy for working on a Sunday would be jeopardised. The SNP were safeguarding and doing the best for the constituents who elected them - do you expect them to do anything less. Do you not expect your MP to work for you and your area?
You will, of course, have the evidence or source to back your claim that the FM is expecting, or giving the impression, that anything will be "free of charge" once Scotland is independent. Or is that just you saying this? Mind you, if you want to start talking charges then not 50 miles from me there is the abomination that is Trident - I think the SG could lease Faslane to Westminster for an exorbitant sum whilst they scrabble around looking for somewhere to put the missiles and submarines and that would more than cover any cost you might think should be levied.