Second vote?

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't understand why every committed leaver isn't shouting from the rooftops for a second vote. I can't think of a better way for them to dispel all the doubts and questions about the integrity of the first one, to show beyond doubt that remainers are an out-of-touch minority and so on.

Surely the more sure any leaver is of the rectitude of his cause, and of the democratic support for his favoured course of action, the more he should be demanding "bring it on".

• The costs of doing it would be insignificant in the context of just the cost of preparing to leave. AIUI the official public cost of Ref 1 was about £142M, less than 3.5% of what's been set aside so far for Brexit preparations, and less than 3-days worth of NHS £350M per week. Cost is not a serious objection.

• The time taken also could not be a serious objection when set against the 50-year timescale for leaving to make us better off. What real difference will it make if we go into the black in, say September 2069 instead of March 2069?

• Nobody who would be fed up with the campaigning and process of voting again would have to take part. Like any other election they would be free to take as much or as little notice as they wanted to, and would be free to decide whether to spend a few minutes in a polling station or not.

• It's impossible to see how a case could be made that a second vote would be disrespecting the result of the first. Politicians saying "You know what? We've decided leaving is stupid and we aren't going to do it" - that would be disrespecting the will of the people. But this:
  
  "You said you wanted to leave, so we started the process of leaving. This is the deal we have negotiated, so will you please tell us do you want to:
  
  
  
  a) Leave on the basis of this deal
  b) Just walk away and not sign up to this deal
  c) Remain after all"​
  
  is the opposite of disrespecting. Even a web browser asks if you're sure if you try to close it with more than one tab open.
  
• It wouldn't be a re-run of the first, as the questions would be different. It wouldn't be a start of "best of 3/5/7", or "'neverendum' until you get the answer right", it would simply, and genuinely, be confirmation of the democratic will of the people on a matter of enormous economic and political significance.

So, to all those who say "no second referendum/people's vote" - why not? Why not grasp the opportunity to silence the remoaners once and for all? Why not seize the moral high ground and show just how much rubbish all the claims of misleading leave campaigns and illegal spending and foreign manipulation were? Why not put yourself in the position of being able to say "we were asked twice and we said 'leave' both times, so accept that we are leaving and stop complaining."?

What on earth have you to fear from a second vote?

 

[sodthisforfun]

As a remainer, I know there will be no second vote. It's not about grasping opportunities or taking the moral high ground. It's done and it's about accepting it. Please note, I said accepting, not liking!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Actually the "grasping opportunities or taking the moral high ground" is directed at the leavers - a second vote would be a heaven-sent opportunity for them to deal with all the complaints about the flaws in the first one, the suggestion that people didn't know what they were voting for, and so on, and to do so in a way that could no longer be disputed.

 

[transam]

We could have a best of three vote

After that if it is to close to call there could be a penalty shoot out or may be the flip of a coin

 

[transam]

Perhaps there could be a change to the original question

Like say give voters 4 different options or may be 5 the fifth one could be worded none of the above

 

[sodthisforfun]

Yes, I know what you meant, but there is no need for those who voted leave to want for anything more. It's now irrelevant, as is as to why people voted, what lies or guesswork votes were based on and there is little point to score points, it's over.

 

[transam]

They should never have had a refetendum in the 1st place tbh

They actually thought that all votes cast would be on the EU

Plenty voted for other reasons

But we are where we are dare say something will be sorted

Any prime minister of the day. Was handed a poisoned chalice blaming TM is not right

 

[SammyInnit]

No need to ask for a second vote because that Draft won't pass through parliament.

When we're offered a realistic proposal, something like a leavers deal it could be the case but this is just a joke of a paper.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Was handed a poisoned chalice blaming TM is not right

Why not, given that she shouted "give me that poisoned chalice" more convincingly than anybody else?

 

[SammyInnit]

a) Leave on the basis of this deal
b) Just walk away and not sign up to this deal
c) Remain after all"

This is problematic because it plays to leavers being split between a deal, or no deal. Combined could possible make up the greater figure of the 3 so more will have intended to leave in some capacity but of course that's out the window because the no brexit option would be first past the post.

The only fair way to do it would be two ballots.

1 - Leave
Remain

If leave has the majority again
2 - This deal
No Deal

 

[ellal]

The only fair way to do it would be two ballots.

1 - Leave
Remain

If leave has the majority again
2 - This deal
No Deal

In a truly democratic country (which the UK is not), it should have been a two stage referendum in the first place...
(or preferably no referendum at all)

But that aside...

1. Remain or Leave.

'Negotiate' the deal* / make the true facts doubly obvious, then...

2. Go with the deal or remain.

As it stands no-one (save those who have orchestrated/financed brexit) will gain, and the UK is totally divided indefinitely

The whole process/debacle has been played out in order to try to protect tory party interests (and that of their puppet masters), not the interests of the country!

*The outline deal was known since day 1, since the UK helped draft the withdrawal procedure in the first place!

 

[SammyInnit]

1. Remain or Leave.

'Negotiate' the deal* / make the true facts doubly obvious, then...

2. Go with the deal or remain.

I'll give you that, that's a very shrude way of saying 'we need a people's vote'. Essentially no different to:

a) Leave on the basis of this deal
b) Just walk away and not sign up to this deal
c) Remain after all"

If a majority voted to leave (as they have) in the first referendum the second should be asking on what terms. It's all just a crafty way of the remain side trying to claw it back.

 

[Notch7]

Parliament cant reach a decision, the only way to resolve that is back to the people

 

[SirGalahad]

The original referendum was badly designed. It never defined what leave was and it should have required a super majority of something like 60% plus as a true reflection of people's desires.

Having a referendum that splits the county helps no one especially the self serving tory ****s pulling the tory party apart. Had high hopes for Cameron but I'm done with the torys after voting for them twice.

 

[Notch7]

The original referendum was badly designed. It never defined what leave was and it should have required a super majority of something like 60% plus as a true reflection of people's desires.

Having a referendum that splits the county helps no one especially the self serving tory ****s pulling the tory party apart. Had high hopes for Cameron but I'm done with the torys after voting for them twice.

Sadly British politics is at an all time low. The Tory party are just appalling -is there even 1 decent cabinet minister? The Labour party have been a pretty poor opposition as well -they havent held the Tories to account.

We all know the referendum was ill thought out because the presumption was that there would be a remain majority -I expected it to be around 65%.