Well, if we're to gamble, let it be at least fair. Best to refuse a second referendum altogether - but as Mrs May has already categorically said we won't have one, you can be sure it's on the cards. My suggestion for a fair format below.
Tuesday, 31 July 2018
Second Referendum?
The pressure from Remain is now for a second referendum - preferably a single question, three choice version designed to split the Leave vote.
Well, if we're to gamble, let it be at least fair. Best to refuse a second referendum altogether - but as Mrs May has already categorically said we won't have one, you can be sure it's on the cards. My suggestion for a fair format below.
Well, if we're to gamble, let it be at least fair. Best to refuse a second referendum altogether - but as Mrs May has already categorically said we won't have one, you can be sure it's on the cards. My suggestion for a fair format below.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
We have already decided to Leave the EU.
I think Treason May will sanction another Referendum.
I think Treason May will sanction another Referendum.
I think May will sanction another Referendum.
I think May will sanction another Referendum but since we've already deciced to LEAVE the EU, any second Referendum should only offer a choice of HOW we leave. Otherwise, it is just an attempt to overturn the first Referendum (which of course is exactly what they intend).
The question SHOULD be along the lines of:
The UK is leaving the EU. Should we
1. Accept the Chequers/EU Agreement (or whatever it's called)
2. Accept World Trade terms
And a Government leaflet should provide an impartial explanation of BOTH options.
But they won't of course. The whole thing will be rigged.
The remoaners own ignorance, of the EU is showing.
A50 is not an administrative matter, it cant be delayed on a whim
The Uk leaves March 2019
Any agreement to extend that would require a treaty, voted on and approved by the HoC, HoL, and the EU
Theres no majority anywhere, for anything, and never will be.
Its not that simple
Firstly, we've already had that referendum
Cameron went to EUrope for a new deal, we voted it was insufficient and to leave.
Any agreement to stay would require an agreement, and that would need votes both here and in Brussels
TrT is wrong. The EU routinely ignores or simply re-writes the rules to suit the aims of their project.
It’s one of the reasons I object to Brussels. It is not a democratic rules-based system, it is a nascent USSR.
Raedwald,
Your questions don't include how the re-joining deal would look like.
There is every reason to believe that re-joining would mean we lose our rebates and we would have to join the Euro and Schenghen.
I don't want a second referendum, I want us out as quickly and as cheaply as possible.
If there were to be a ballot question for any future referendum, once we're out, I think it must include the consequences of us being a member of this dysfunctional organisation. For example, we would be required to adopt the Euro, have our defence forces controlled by Brussels and be required to admit many more hundreds of thousands of unwanted immigrants. And Brussels would punish us anyway, for having the gall to want to leave.
The isn't enough emphasis being placed on what would be in store for our country of we were foolish enough to want to rejoin the EU.
If only we could convince the remainers that the Muslims, homosexuals and transgendered want to leave the EU...
I echo the other commenters - there's not enough scope in a few questions to capture *and bind* our politicians when the way forward is so complex. In any event the 'Chequers Plan' will be modified or abandoned before another referendum can be organised.
The original Leave/Remain Referendum was sufficient to identify the broad policy direction (which we are still waiting for our politicians to crystalise). No further referendum is required.
You are not a sound individual Radders.
By even accepting the idea you convey a bogus legitimacy on evil.
There will be no second vote BECAUSE IT WOULD BE FIXED. There will be one box for the remain gang and half a dozen for Brexit. Oh look --remain got the most overall votes.
STOP LEGITIMISING BRAZEN EVIL BY SPECULATING THAT THERE IS ANY VALIDITY IN THE REMAIN GANGS CRAP.
I'm with DeeDee - we've already had a vote. Remain lost. End
Dear Mr Ecks
Please stop shouting at me. The greater your attempts to bully me, the more I ignore everything you have to say, whether useful or not.
Try reasoned argument, like the other commenters do. I genuinely welcome it and keep my mind open to all reason.
I agree with the basis of most comments here - but I simply don't trust Mrs May not to grant a second ballot. If so, we need to argue about the questions. Hence this post. To get minds moving.
Clearly we must fight it every step of the way - and the best grounds are understanding the issues under question. Responses here have already advanced our common understanding considerably.
Let's first have a ballot on whether we have a second referendum........ ad infinitum.
I note that the EU, as soon as we declared 'leave', introduced changes such as Common Army etc such that should we change our minds and stay we'd be pre-accepting the changes thay'd already implemented. Perhaps this was their plan all along?
These Globalists do tend to think way in advance of what they actually want and lead us by the nose to their chosen decision by carefully crafted deceit. We have past history to prove that method.
The fine line being tottered along at the moment is how to progress Bremain without incurring a 'physical' response. The Globalists can manage any political event (new referendum, General Election, leadership challenges etc) but they can't control civil unrest. The negotiations (deceit) is being carefully 'walked through' to get to their desired end result without going so far as to push us beyond the limits of acceptability - where they'd definitely lose.
I have a sinking feeling that we may have to incite the civil unrest BEFORE a resolution of the affairs as being the only way to get what WE want. But that's as good as admitting that we've lost already - getting people's dander up should have happened already and I feel we have been too complacent for too long for it to work now.
Whether we stay or remain is now 'up in the air' and no-one really knows. If it was humanly possible to secede from .gov/.eu and do your own thing and screw the system/consequences then I'm sure we'd all be getting on with life but as long as there is ONE person who will tout .gov/.eu laws/legislation then we will always be supplicant to their actions and retaliations.
The future is dark.
but I simply don't trust Mrs May not to grant a second ballot.
If ProjectFear-The Zombie Apocalypse Edition doesn't scare the Moggites into accepting the Chequers Betrayal then May will use the threat of a 2nd referendum as her nuclear option to get them to buckle under.
Nobody on here will be surprised if Theresa May's government, with Lab-LibDem support, authorises a "second" referendum. May is not just a Remain, she is a liar, having deceived her own Ministers.
No direct repeat of the 2016 Referendum is democratically legitimate: it would undermine the legitimacy of the "first" (2016), which in turn undermines the "second" itself. That applies even if the repeat is partially hidden by different language, or by being part of a multi-question referendum as in Raedwald's example above.
The 2016 Referendum was to choose an outcome: Remain with Cameron's re-negotiated deal (and not: Remain as was; or Remain as now), or Leave the EU altogether. There is nothing in the 2015 EU Referendum Act to authorise the discarding of either of the outcomes stipulated. So, after the 2016 result, Leave is the only legal outcome possible.
So it comes down to what does "Leave" mean? The lawyers will have a field day, of course. But it shouldn't be too difficult to point out that May's WP deal (which loops us back in to the EU via new treaties) is clearly not leaving the EU in any meaningful sense.
Consequently I do not think that even a second referendum where the choice is limited to: a) a deal involving some EU control of the UK (eg May's WP); or b) the existing WTO deal; is legitimate. That's because outcome a) breeches the prior outcomes specified in the 2015 Act.
The chances of getting a fair second referendum are slim as the political pressure for a hard Brexit has eased with UKIP slipping from media focus.
The establishment want to stay in and are trying to grudingly provide something that they can try and sell as leave whilst still mostly remaining in where it counts.
Thinking a bit more about what I wrote above, perhaps I have underestimated Mrs May, or rather underestimated Olly Robbins. The May/Robbins WP could be an example of the products from the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation in which: "their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.
That means BINO may only be the superficial flaw in the May/Robbins WP. Maybe the hidden fundamental purpose of the M/R WP is specifically to provide the alternative (Remain) option in a future second referendum? An option, if I'm right above, that would be legally challenged if stated baldly as "Remain in the EU", but would be difficult to touch if offered as the government's WP.
Q1
* The UK should remain in the EU, like I said last time
* The UK should leave the EU, like I said last time
* The UK should stay permanently stuck in the catflap, like Mrs May wants us to be
Q2
* Why bother asking, you didn't listen the first time
Sackerson, Nice.
Sackerson's raised a valid point. If we say yes we want to leave a second time, then shall we have to go through all the bitterness for another couple of years before we get asked again?
From what I've seen thus far (Indy Scotland and the EU thing), politicians only allow us a referendum if they think they'll get the result they want. At this stage it's very unlikely the original result will be overturned.
And this rot about only old people voted to leave and we'll all die and the youth will suddenly vote in masses to remain. That was the carrion call in Scotland after Indy failed. Now the youth are siding with their elders and Indy 2 just ain't going to happen.
And here's the rub. Scotland voted to remain in part because Sturgeon promised a second referendum if we voted to remain and the rest of the UK voted to leave. I know of at least 3 people who voted to remain simply to get an Indy 2. Not one of the 3 want to remain in the EU and if there's little or no possibility of an Indy 2, then they'll vote to leave the EU.
IMO Scotland, Wales and NI are the jokers in this pack. Not sure about Gibraltar where it was 98% remain, however my feelings are they're just as hacked off with the whole charade.
My gut instinct is they'll lose yet again, very probably by a couple of percentage points. It will however enable Boris to raise his profile and could well result in him becoming the next PM. This is far more likely to be of greater concern to May than seeking approval to quit trying.
But the clock's ticking and if they really do want a 2nd referendum, they'd best get cracking by the first week in December, with the referendum taking place before the end of March 2019.
I do not think they will risk another referendum. They only allowed the first one because they were sure they would win, and look what happened. If they lose another one - which might happen, regardless of what the polls say - then there is nowhere left to hide.
I believe they will continue on their present course, which as far as anyone can tell is to stay in, while executing some legal legerdemain which would allow them to claim had respected the result.
No curse is strong enough to express my contempt for these people.
They only allowed the first one because they were sure they would win, and look what happened. If they lose another one - which might happen, regardless of what the polls say - then there is nowhere left to hide.
Precisely. That's why May will use the threat of one to cower the Moggites into accepting whatever Chequers flavoured fudge and why the current ludicrous Project Fear is designed, in part, to increase demands from the populace for a 2nd referendum so her threat will seem real.
I think we can pretty much guarantee that any future EU referendum will be worded as:
"I would prefer to continue having all the plentiful benefits of EU membership under a politically neutral umbrella of justice and peace led by wise and benign sages."
OR
Despite all warnings from neutral bodies such as the IMF and OECD, I stubbornly prefer to cast the UK adrift and turn it into an impoverished international pariah for ever.
DP111 writes
We first need to have a referendum if there is a need for a referendum, on an issue that a referendum has already settled.
Only right and fair. Otherwise we will have to have referendums on the same issue ad infinitum.
The last time we left the EU (then known as the Catholic Church) was under Henry VIII. His successor was a teenage leaver, followed by a fanatical remainer.
Fortunately, her reign was followed by a long period of rule by a firm but moderate leaver.
But the argument rumbled on until 1688.
This time around, it will again not be settled in one generation. Like Japan, we are both too near and too far from the mainland.
Don Cox
Post a Comment