[Ter]

It is funny that some are asking for a "people's vote" meaning a second referendum.
My question is : who voted in the original referendum... Aliens ? Animals ?

[B0ycey]

Being that the first vote is advisory and the second would be advisory, by having a second vote, the PM would know what step to take next.

Why do people think UK referendums are legally binding?

[Ter]

I did not mention anything about legally binding.
I can see where this is going, keep on voting till you get the result some wanted in the first place (cfr Ireland, France, Netherlands, Denmark...)

Anyway, it is your country and you can do as you wish.

Be it 52/48 or 48/52, in any case you will get a polarised society.
With most probably social unrest that might not get healed in a generation.
Good luck.

[JohnRawls]

[layman]

@Ter you just made the point for us. Major changes like this require more than a wafer slim majority for an ambiguous path. 2/3 I think is standard thinking for constitutional type changes.

It’s all very well making snarky comments from afar but there is no “democratic” option here. You have a tiny majority for a path with multiple roads and no majority for any of those specific roads. No majority in Parliament or the public.

It’s either a referendum or flipping a coin.

[Ter]

It’s either a referendum or flipping a coin.

Well yes, and you had your referendum isn't it ?

@JohnRawls I cannot see what you posted, it just says "Image"

[B0ycey]

The referendum didn't have a manifesto. So what exactly was voted for? That is the problem. Everyone wants different things from Brexit. To answer "what Brexit we have" needs some more advice.

The perils of promising everything...

[JohnRawls]

Well yes, and you had your referendum isn't it ?

@JohnRawls I cannot see what you posted, it just says "Image"

Is this better? Or this also blocked for you?

[Ter]

Is this better? Or this also blocked for you?

Yes, thanks, now I can see it.
I don't think it is a question of blocking, rather some publications do not allow third party posting.

[Rich]

Teresa May has been one of the most truthful, consistent and brave politicians. She has pushed for:

1 Authoritarian, anti free speech, anti due process security policies since 2010. And maintaining security links with Europe since 2016

2 A harsh more restrictive immigration policy since 2010 and since 2016 she has sought to end EU free movement. Unlike Sajid Javid who wants to use Brexit to ramp up Muslim, African and Afro Caribbean immigration

3 Since 2016 She sought to exit the EU.

4 Since 2016 she has sought to maintain the Good Friday Agreement, again prioritising security and stability above all else.

5 Since 2016 she has sought to keep Eire in the Common travel Area and out of Schengen. Yet another potential security risk.

6 since 2016 She has sought not to join the EEA.

7 Since 2016 She has sought to leave the Single market.

8 Since 2016 she has sought to leave the ECJ jurisdiction.

9 Since 2016 She has sought to leave the Custom Union at least in name.

Its really only the around the last 2 points and the backstop that she's been somewhat duplicitous. But for a home secretary and Prime minister this is actually a remarkable level of consistency and honesty. She's been far more honest and consistent than any other of the parliamentary factions.

[ingliz]

keep on voting till you get the result some wanted in the first place (cfr Ireland, France, Netherlands, Denmark...)

Stupid argument.

Are you not allowed to change your mind in a democracy?

[Ter]

Stupid argument.

Are you not allowed to change your mind in a democracy?

'

Of course yes.
You are in this case however just a hypocrite.
If the remainers would have won, you and the others would have said that they have to wait at least a generation to have another referendum, if ever.

So I don't buy it, and I am sure all Brexiters won't either.
We know this is important for your pension and I don't have any interest in this but let us stay honest and respectful.

And by the way the damage to Britain and the EU is done already.
As I said I see this becoming very ugly very soon.
Let's see.

[ingliz]

As I said I see this becoming very ugly very soon.

The 'Zimmer frame' revolt?

Of those aged 65 and over, 60% placed their cross against Leave. In contrast, over 70% of 18 to 24-year-olds who voted in the referendum backed Remain.

[Rich]

First off we have the DUP snowflakes, who want a hard Brexit along with seamless trade and maintenance of the good Friday Agreement. Mrs May promised "Brexit means Brexit." Given the very challenging constrictions, May's deal can be fairly said to have delivered Brexit. But of course that wasn't good enough for ERGers, our hard Brexiteers. The Brexit snowflakes didn't want to actually take responsibility for an actual deal, they only wanted to take responsibility for their fantasy special snowflake deal.

May delivered Brexit to them on a plate, but of course once the ERGers rejected the deal that gave permission for all the hard core remainers to vote against the deal. If the ERG snow flakes weren't going to take any ownership of the deal why should other opposing factions. A significant number of labour and liberal democratic MPs could have been shamed into voting for May's deal. The whole Brexiteer argument was that there could only be one government, there could only be one article 50 period, therefore there could only be one agreement - "Take it, or take It!". Article 50 made it impossible to give Parliament a meaningful vote.

Once the ERG snowflakes denounced the deal how could even Labour Brexiteers like Kate Hoey vote for it? What person in their right mind, who wasn't hoping for promotion within a Conservative government would vote for it now? Now the ERG might still win, at least they might still get a no deal Brexit, but don't come whining to me about betrayal.

I just want to say thank you to David Cameron for calling the referendum.

Its brilliantly entertaining, I've seen nothing like this since Dirty Den went back to EastEnders. But more seriously I think this could end up being profoundly good for British democracy. The British people are being treated to a painful lesson in reality. Unlike left and right fascists I support a losers vote. I support a proportional representation vote for Parliament every 2 years. I support a losers vote every two years, regardless of whether the winners of the previous election have fulfilled their manifesto. I support a losers vote even if the losers have frustrated and not cooperated with the winners of the previous election in fulfilling their election manifesto. This is very different from fascists, Marxist and Islamists who support the principle of one person, one vote, one time.

[layman]

@ingliz

Brexiteers never take to the streets. They are either too old, lazy or generally uninterested in politics or activism.

A few tommy Robinson types with skin heads and beer bellies if you are lucky.

[Rich]

That's an important point @layman. The potential to mobilise on the streets is a powerful assets in the negotiations.

Just to add to May's objectives above, she has sought to keep Eire in the Common travel Area and out of Schengen. Another point I can't ever remember hearing our dishonest Brexiteers ever addressing. I note again the strange silence of Sinn Fein. They have a potential to mobilise both Irish nationalists and British left activist youth, if they don't get their way. I suggest that is why May made a secret deal with Sinn Fein before launching Article 50.

[redcarpet]

Its brilliantly entertaining, I've seen nothing like this since Dirty Den went back to EastEnders. But more seriously I think this could end up being profoundly good for British democracy. The British people are being treated to a painful lesson in reality. Unlike left and right fascists I support a losers vote. I support a proportional representation vote for Parliament every 2 years. I support a losers vote every two years, regardless of whether the winners of the previous election have fulfilled their manifesto. I support a losers vote even if the losers have frustrated and not cooperated with the winners of the previous election in fulfilling their election manifesto. This is very different from fascists, Marxist and Islamists who support the principle of one person, one vote, one time.

What do you mean by 'losers vote'?

More broadly. certainly the hard Brexiters won't admit their campaign was distorted by Russia via Cambridge Analytica, repeated lies, as well as exploiting sheer ignorance of voters about EU institutions and how they work. This is known and has been for years (eg. 2002);

Reasons for disconnection
12. Many reasons have been suggested for the disconnection between citizens and EU institutions, some of which have been touched on already. The Commission's list includes a perceived inability of the EU to act effectively where a clear case exists, the EU not obtaining the credit when it does act effectively, Member States blaming 'Brussels' for decisions they have agreed to themselves, and lack of understanding about the EU institutions; the EU 'is often seen as remote and at the same time too intrusive'.[19] The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain) listed a general trend towards non-participation, euro-jargon, lack of involvement of national parliaments, over-emphasis on institutional changes at the expense of delivering practical benefits, confusion over who does what, lack of consultation, and worries about excessive EU interference.[20] Other reasons offered have included the opaqueness and complexity of EU law-making, a perception that the EU is undermining democracy and national sovereignty, lack of emotional commitment to the EU and (at least in the UK) lack of media coverage and the nature of such coverage as there is.[21]

There is no point in me asking a British tabloid writer, or reader, or UKIP member to 'define an imposed decision on the UK from the EU'. The obvious answer is 'any decision I disagree with'. Even if it's not a 'decision' but a recommendation.

A more specific, regular lie, is, that I always see spouted whenever written/spoken about, is that an EU Directive is 100% obligatory. Ahh, that's a half-lie;

Directive (European Union)

A directive is a legal act of the European Union[1] which requires member states to achieve a particular result without dictating the means of achieving that result. It can be distinguished from regulations, which are self-executing and do not require any implementing measures. Directives normally leave member states with a certain amount of leeway as to the exact rules to be adopted. Directives can be adopted by means of a variety of legislative procedures depending on their subject matter.

The text of a draft directive (if subject to the co-decision process, as contentious matters usually are) is prepared by the Commission after consultation with its own and national experts. The draft is presented to the Parliament and the Council—composed of relevant ministers of member governments, initially for evaluation and comment then subsequently for approval or rejection.

Or that more broadly that the UK is 'dictated to by Brussels most of the time'. That's not correct.

According to Sara Hagemann of UK in a Changing Europe: It is incorrect to say that the UK consistently loses in the EU.
Since 1999, when decision records became available from the EU Council where governments meet to negotiate and adopt policies, the UK has been in the minority (voting "No") on 57 legislative acts.
It has supported - and hence been in the majority - on 2,474 acts, and abstained on 70 occasions.
It is true that the UK votes against the majority more frequently than other member states, in particular during the last few years of David Cameron’s Government. But the UK is not consistently outvoted in the EU.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/22/eu-referendum-fact-checking-the-big-claims1/

For once I agree with the Daily Telegraph, lol. These people want to pretend that most of the time that like, all of a sudden a EU Commissioner makes a Directive announcement, and is 'imposing' it on the UK, etc. Even if we are talking about an EU Directive, the means is voluntary, and there's previous meetings, which, as the trend shows, the UK mostly votes in favour.

If you mean 'imposed' when it's compulsory, well, that sounds like an emotional political swearword. Like losing a court case and denouncing a judge for 'imposing' a ruling on you.

[layman]

Our prime minister is to face a vote of no confidence today. I don’t really see it as good news as it would solve nothing. There is no candidate that is significantly more unifying.

It’s just more Tory infighting and brexiteers being pig headed.

In other news, Corbyn still thinks he cannot renegotiate a better deal, despite similar red lines and Europe saying clearly it will not do so.

[Rich]

What do you mean by 'losers vote'?

In early November 1917, the Bolsheviks won the votes at the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, Let's leave aside the fact that the Congress was highly unrepresentative and gave huge advantage to the cosmopolitan areas where the intellectual elite dominated the local politics. The Bolsheviks said to the losers be gone, you lost, you don't get a second chance. You belong in the dustbin of history.

I support the democratic system where the losers of one election get the chance to become the winners at the next. Repeated elections are for losers. Winners don't need another election. The Bolsheviks, the winners of these votes said what's in it for us, to hold another meaningful vote.

It should be noted that the overwhelmingly middle and upper class leadership of the Bolshevik party had to trick the ordinary working people into giving up their power by stealth. It only became apparent over time what they were up to. Mussolini was a democrat at this time and Hitler seems to have been a democrat after the November 1918 armistice, supporting the SPD, one of the great three pillars of the Weimar democracy. Mussolini supported giving votes to women.

It was only later that Mussolini and Hitler were persuaded to try and copy the Bolshevik system of government. Fascism was never totalitarian like Communion. Fascist leaders were replaced by the monarch in both Italy and Japan. In Germany the monarch was removed, but it was removed by the left, there is no evidence that Hitler supported that decision. Hindenburg died a natural death. He and his family weren't brutally murdered like Tsar Nicolas II. However the removal of Hitler was discussed by Hitlers Generals at points through out Hitler's premiership. The fact that Adolph Hitler was not removed was the fault of Roosevelt and his unconditional surrender. Even Stalin wasn't demented enough to demand unconditional surrender.

[redcarpet]

In early November 1917, the Bolsheviks won the votes at the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, Let's leave aside the fact that the Congress was highly unrepresentative and gave huge advantage to the cosmopolitan areas where the intellectual elite dominated the local politics. The Bolsheviks said to the losers be gone, you lost, you don't get a second chance. You belong in the dustbin of history.

I support the democratic system where the losers of one election get the chance to become the winners at the next. Repeated elections are for losers. Winners don't need another election. The Bolsheviks, the winners of these votes said what's in it for us, to hold another meaningful vote.

It should be noted that the overwhelmingly middle and upper class leadership of the Bolshevik party had to trick the ordinary working people into giving up their power by stealth. It only became apparent over time what they were up to. Mussolini was a democrat at this time and Hitler seems to have been a democrat after the November 1918 armistice, supporting the SPD, one of the great three pillars of the Weimar democracy. Mussolini supported giving votes to women.

It was only later that Mussolini and Hitler were persuaded to try and copy the Bolshevik system of government. Fascism was never totalitarian like Communion. Fascist leaders were replaced by the monarch in both Italy and Japan. In Germany the monarch was removed, but it was removed by the left, there is no evidence that Hitler supported that decision. Hindenburg died a natural death. He and his family weren't brutally murdered like Tsar Nicolas II. However the removal of Hitler was discussed by Hitlers Generals at points through out Hitler's premiership. The fact that Adolph Hitler was not removed was the fault of Roosevelt and his unconditional surrender. Even Stalin wasn't demented enough to demand unconditional surrender.

I'm still not sure. Are you saying like you're opposed to unfixed election terms and support fixed terms?

Or like 2 referendums in a row on the same issue in say a decade banned to combat the sore-losers factor?