• Half of Britons support a second vote on Brexit, poll finds
    42 replies, posted
[QUOTE]LONDON (Reuters) - Half of Britons support a second vote on whether to leave the European Union and a majority think the government may be paying too much money to the EU to open the way to trade talks, according to a new opinion poll. The poll, published in the Mail on Sunday newspaper, found 50 percent of people supported another vote on the final terms of Britain’s exit deal, 34 percent rejected another referendum and 16 percent said they did not know. The newspaper said it was the first major opinion poll since last week’s media reports that Britain is preparing to pay about 50 billion euros ($59 billion) to help to move on to talks on a future trade pact with the EU. Mike Smithson, an election analyst who runs the [url]www.politicalbetting.com[/url] website and a former Liberal Democrat politician, said on Twitter it was “the first time any pollster has recorded backing” for a second Brexit referendum. Since the referendum in 2016, high profile opponents of Britain’s exit - from French President Emmanuel Macron, to former British prime minister Tony Blair and billionaire investor George Soros - have suggested Britain could change its mind and avoid what they say will be disastrous for the British economy.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-vote/half-of-britons-support-a-second-vote-on-brexit-poll-finds-idUSKBN1DX0P6?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5a2443d704d301392b659a69&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook"]Reuters.[/URL]
ahaha i wonder which half
The country definitely seems to have forgotten that leaving is a one time thing, you can't leave then rejoin later, whereas remaining is a constant decision that can be overturned at any time. I think it's hard to argue that if we'd decided to remain that the leave crowd wouldn't have continued to campaign for leave, and that there wouldn't be at least one more brexit vote later down the line. I genuinely don't think that a direct democracy vote after a terrible campaign that is indirectly linked to the death of an MP, that was all called for not because of genuine care for the British people but because of party politics, is the kind of serious deliberation a decision like this needs. Not especially after the ensuing clusterfuck that happened after the vote took place including our prime minister stepping down to have a pro brexit replace him and then ending up being replaced by his second in command remain campaigner. Would it be a sore loser thing for me to say that it's entirely possible that our democracy isn't flexible enough?
[QUOTE=Rossy167;52943782]you can't leave then rejoin later[/QUOTE] Well, we probably could. But it'd be a long, arduous process with no guarantee of success and we'd never receive any of the benefits we had as one of the founding members such as our overpowered as fuck veto rights and position outside of the Eurozone with no extra negatives. Though I do find it cute that the leave campaigners were hard up on the idea of repeatedly calling for referendums until they won, but the second they won the mere suggestion that we redo the fucking thing because it was a sham is apparently "unpatriotic" and makes remain voters "traitors".
Nobody is willing to pull that card in our government however because they are all cowards who know it would be political suicide if they attempt it, so basically, party before the country.
Doesn't it make sense though? We didn't know what Brexit would look like before the referendum. Now we know - or, well, have a pretty good idea - what it's going to mean, shouldn't we be able to reconsider?
Can't believe I'm rooting for Tony Blair. I think any discourse caused by this would outweigh the extreme negatives of leaving the EU so I'm all for it. Would be messy though. The idea that we can bail out with a deal is fucking insane.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;52944179]Doesn't it make sense though? We didn't know what Brexit would look like before the referendum. Now we know - or, well, have a pretty good idea - what it's going to mean, shouldn't we be able to reconsider?[/QUOTE] We had a pretty good idea what Brexit would look like before and during the referendum because, and this may shock those out there that voted leave, we have functional economic models that can be used to predict massive sweeping policy changes. Unsurprisingly most of these models didn't give out particularly positive predictions because it's damn hard to find a better deal than EEA membership with none of the actual requirements of EEA membership (we had a form of freedom of movement, but that's kinda required if you're going to be trading tbh). This meme of "we don't know what it will look like till we do it!" is utter shite and the exact same shit that's been used by the US Republicans to pass trash bills before they get a chance to be properly looked at.
I wonder how vindictive the EU would be if the UK retracted their decision.
[QUOTE=Ager O'Eggers;52944223]I wonder how vindictive the EU would be if the UK retracted their decision.[/QUOTE] Two things I can find on it [url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/20/european-parliament-will-welcome-britain-back-if-voters-veto-brexit]President of the European Parliament: UK would be welcomed back if voters overturn Brexit[/url] [url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/schaeuble-says-u-k-welcome-back-if-brexit-were-to-be-overturned]German Finance Minister Schaeuble Says U.K. Welcome Back If Brexit Was Overturned[/url]
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52944326]Two things I can find on it [url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/20/european-parliament-will-welcome-britain-back-if-voters-veto-brexit]President of the European Parliament: UK would be welcomed back if voters overturn Brexit[/url] [url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/schaeuble-says-u-k-welcome-back-if-brexit-were-to-be-overturned]German Finance Minister Schaeuble Says U.K. Welcome Back If Brexit Was Overturned[/url][/QUOTE] But that said, the UK would most certainly lose most, if not all, of their special privileges they had prior to the referendum.
[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52944351]But that said, the UK would most certainly lose most, if not all, of their special privileges they had prior to the referendum.[/QUOTE] Absolutely, we'd be treated like Greece did if we want to re-enter.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;52944179]Doesn't it make sense though? We didn't know what Brexit would look like before the referendum. Now we know - or, well, have a pretty good idea - what it's going to mean, shouldn't we be able to reconsider?[/QUOTE] Anyone who did about 5 minutes of light reading on it knew what'd happen, we had barely anything to gain and loads to lose and anyone who understood that could see that the EU would've fucked us over as we tried to pull out.
Nuh uh! No take-backs!
Yeah, no. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Why reply? - Put effort into your polidicks posts" - icemaz))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Boilrig;52944735]Yeah, no.[/QUOTE] What, afraid that enough people wised up to what Brexit really means? If you're so concerned about the democratic process and so confident in Brexit shouldn't you be eager to have a second vote to potentially further legitimise your cause? :thinking:
[QUOTE=Boilrig;52944735]Yeah, no.[/QUOTE] so democracy isn't to be valued once it's had it's time to get it's wits together about being lied to you sure about that?
[QUOTE=Boilrig;52944735]Yeah, no.[/QUOTE] What, why, it is the 50% of people you disagree with this time? Maybe the EU does offer more than UK going at it alone and people realized, everyone slips up sometimes.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;52944735]Yeah, no.[/QUOTE] 2016: It's the will of the majority*, we simply must go forward with this, there's no other option :) 2017: This is a pernicious falsehood and anyone voicing their opposition is a fool and their opinion is to be disregarded.
The problem with revoking Article 50 is that it could set a precedent that you can literally start the process of leaving the EU as a threat and change your mind. On the other hand Brexit being stopped would stop all the chaos going on right now so - I say allow it and then amend Article 50 with a 'no-takeybackies' rule.
Idk how I feel about cancelling the leaving EU process (Not talking about UK specifically but I mean in general for any member who would do this) Cancelling exit process seems like it allows any EU member in future to start process of leaving EU, then negotiating a better deal/terms to stay, then cancelling the process. Kinda bs, basically giving random tools to all EU members. There should be a punishment/penalty of some sort to deter these hoax initiations. It's like a teenager who runs away from home and then comes back few hours later.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52945334]If leaving is cancelled wouldn't they lose exactly nothing? I mean, they're still in, they're not out of any treaties or deals yet afaik, so why would they lose special privileges?[/QUOTE] If the UK wanted to reverse Article 50 then the act itself and the conditions of it would require the unanimous approval of all other 27 member states. The privileges and special status the UK got was a point of contention with several of the other members and it would only take one to strong-arm us in negotiations.
[QUOTE=Kiwi;52945519]Care to elaborate or are you just gonna expect people to be mind readers?[/QUOTE] Boilrig is straight up a British Imperialist. He genuinely thinks the British Empire will somehow be reborn after the UK leaves the EU.
[QUOTE=Kiwi;52945519]Care to elaborate or are you just gonna expect people to be mind readers?[/QUOTE] Unless the second referendum was basically attached to the first way back when this was started, all you do is open it up for referendums after that one. This is exactly why Cameron said it wasn't going to be a neverendum because he knew at the time if Remain won, he needed to close the door to Leave pushing for another referendum. You basically play into what Nigel has been saying for years about ignoring referendums and all the 'spooky EU stuff' and it nearly plays well enough for a protest vote for people to vote Leave as a shot at the government for trying to ignore the first result, the final deal referendum might even appear as a multichoice having even a smaller percentage of agreeance across the country. There is no need to begin a string of keep having referendums until I win idea.
[QUOTE=Kiwi;52945538]We know what happens when governments don't listen to the public correctly and straight up bullshit on serious topics like this. What makes you so sure that Cameron should have closed all options and gone straight for this?[/QUOTE] Cameron knew this issue wasn't going to disappear, ever since the UK joined the EU the debate for leaving has been there, a referendum acts as a final decision is most cases, but he knew in its non-binding nature that it could be challenged in the future, but this was supposed to close the discussion or put it away for another 20 years. [QUOTE=Kiwi;52945538] Why does the second referendum have to be the same when clearly the first one was a complete flop?[/QUOTE] Who knows, it may turn out with the same result. [QUOTE=Kiwi;52945538] Understand that misinformation around the initial Brexit events was a huge issue and people are slowly coming to terms that just maybe this is a very bad deal.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but does that mean a second referendum is in order, I mean, people would love a second presidential election. [QUOTE=Kiwi;52945538] I'll argue that maybe we can do Brexit better if that's the path the UK is choosing to go but also understand that Brexit if it goes through will do a lot of damage.[/QUOTE] Brexit could've gone a different path and possibly not even started if we saw EU reform, but at this current stage, how Brexit is handled, is probably the best it can be, everything is behind the scenes, whether behind doors or at lunches, you'll see the most progress made.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;52944735]Yeah, no.[/QUOTE] but I thought you said 50% was a clear majority - having another referendum is clearly the will of the people by the numbers you speak!
[QUOTE=Boilrig;52945587]Cameron knew this issue wasn't going to disappear, ever since the UK joined the EU the debate for leaving has been there, a referendum acts as a final decision is most cases, but he knew in its non-binding nature that it could be challenged in the future, but this was supposed to close the discussion or put it away for another 20 years. Who knows, it may turn out with the same result. Yeah, but does that mean a second referendum is in order, I mean, people would love a second presidential election. Brexit could've gone a different path and possibly not even started if we saw EU reform, but at this current stage, how Brexit is handled, is probably the best it can be, everything is behind the scenes, whether behind doors or at lunches, you'll see the most progress made.[/QUOTE] The thing is, a second referendum would not even have the option to stay, so you claiming it is the government trying to stop Brexit, if they went through with one, is wrong. The choices, I suspect, would be something like this: 1. Leave the EU, EU Council and Single Market 2. Leave the EU, remaining with the EU Council and Single Market Simple. Of course, picking 2 is even dumber than leaving outright, which was already dumb, as we would be bound by the same rules and not even have representation in EU parliament like we do now, although it would be less economically catastrophic, so I would still vote 2 despite thinking it would be like America voting to become an autocracy.
Can somebdy remember who those "a majority is a majority" posters were? [editline]4th December 2017[/editline] Found it [QUOTE=David29;52921465]I started typing out a long reply, but then I thought: "why bother"? I really have better things to on my Saturday off than argue with someone who is so blinded that: a. Is prepared to ignore the English dictionary: "[I]majority noun uk ​ /məˈdʒɒr.ə.ti/ us ​ /məˈdʒɑː.rə.t̬i/ majority noun (NUMBER) ​ The larger number or part of something: The majority of the employees have university degrees. A large majority of people approve of the death sentence. In Britain women are in the/a majority. tie verb uk ​ /taɪ/ us ​ /taɪ/ present participle tying, past tense and past participle tied tie verb (FINISH EQUAL) To finish at the same time or score the same number of points, etc. in a competition as someone or something else: Jane and I tied (for first place) in the spelling test. We tied with a team from the south in the championships.[/I]" b. Isn't even willing to look further into my examples which act as counter-arguments: "[I]I shall end with saying I will do no such thing[/I]" Although this did make me laugh: "[I]but I'm definitely not obligated to continue to listen to/respond to your posts if I find it a waste of my time to do so.[/I]" Translates into: "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" (See? I can do it too!) [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Novangel))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Boilrig;52945587]Cameron knew this issue wasn't going to disappear, ever since the UK joined the EU the debate for leaving has been there, a referendum acts as a final decision is most cases, but he knew in its non-binding nature that it could be challenged in the future, but this was supposed to close the discussion or put it away for another 20 years. [/QUOTE] If it should have closed the discussion, then it should have done in an honest manner, the remain campaign was a steamrolling pile of bullshit and people realize it now. Ironical, this just increased the discussions instead putting a lid on it. [QUOTE] Who knows, it may turn out with the same result. [/QUOTE] Or not, ya great point you got there. /s [QUOTE] Yeah, but does that mean a second referendum is in order, I mean, people would love a second presidential election. [/QUOTE] Two entirely different processes, apples to oranges. [QUOTE] Brexit could've gone a different path and possibly not even started if we saw EU reform, but at this current stage, how Brexit is handled, is probably the best it can be, everything is behind the scenes, whether behind doors or at lunches, you'll see the most progress made. [/QUOTE] If you wanna call back-pedalling to the highest degree progress, sure. Maybe the people don't want to lose the power and representatives in the EU they already had since UK seems to stay in the EU economic area and still have to follow EU laws. But yeah Article 50 is triggered, guess something has to happen.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;52944209]We had a pretty good idea what Brexit would look like before and during the referendum because, and this may shock those out there that voted leave, we have functional economic models that can be used to predict massive sweeping policy changes. Unsurprisingly most of these models didn't give out particularly positive predictions because it's damn hard to find a better deal than EEA membership with none of the actual requirements of EEA membership (we had a form of freedom of movement, but that's kinda required if you're going to be trading tbh). This meme of "we don't know what it will look like till we do it!" is utter shite and the exact same shit that's been used by the US Republicans to pass trash bills before they get a chance to be properly looked at.[/QUOTE] This, so much fucking [b]this[/b]. Anyone who says "We had no idea what it would be like until we did it!" is lying out their ass or terminally stupid, maybe both. You were told repeatedly what it would be like by the people who's job it is to analyse this stuff - you chose to ignore them, or chose to ignore the bullshit artists who told you to ignore them. (I still want to slap Gove for "The British people are tired of experts!" - Bitch, they're experts for a reason)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.