• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brexit- Will UK have a second referendum on Brexit deal?

Brexit- Will UK have a second referendum on Brexit deal?

  • Total voters
    12
JANFU

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,408
Reaction score
38,971
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Brexit- Will UK have a second referendum on Brexit deal?

Yes

No

So far the deal is not what May wanted, and could cause economic harm to the UK
She is in a fight on all sides, from the EU, her Party- Labor- those in both parties wanting a second referendum, with the prospects that May will sign a bad deal

I stated a long time ago, UK would have a second referendum

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-second-brexit-referendum?srnd=premium-europe
 
JANFU said:
Brexit- Will UK have a second referendum on Brexit deal?

Yes

No

So far the deal is not what May wanted, and could cause economic harm to the UK
She is in a fight on all sides, from the EU, her Party- Labor- those in both parties wanting a second referendum, with the prospects that May will sign a bad deal

I stated a long time ago, UK would have a second referendum

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-second-brexit-referendum?srnd=premium-europe
Click to expand...

It only makes sense when a political party that was squarely against Brexit is the one charged with carrying it out. If this does lead to a second referendum, then legitimate democracy and rule of law have little meaning in the United Kingdom.
 
JANFU said:
Brexit- Will UK have a second referendum on Brexit deal?

Yes

No

So far the deal is not what May wanted, and could cause economic harm to the UK
She is in a fight on all sides, from the EU, her Party- Labor- those in both parties wanting a second referendum, with the prospects that May will sign a bad deal

I stated a long time ago, UK would have a second referendum

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-second-brexit-referendum?srnd=premium-europe
Click to expand...
And if the 2nd vote does not yield the results she wants, should they have a third and fourth vote, or however many it takes for her to get the result she wants.

She needs to go

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Felis Leo said:
It only makes sense when a political party that was squarely against Brexit is the one charged with carrying it out. If this does lead to a second referendum, then legitimate democracy and rule of law have little meaning in the United Kingdom.
Click to expand...

1) The original referendum was non binding.
2) The original referendum was tainted with criminal activity by the leave campaign.

And finally.. what is more democratic than having a referendum on the final "divorce" bill?
 
Brexit is shooting ourselves in both feet. There is no Brexit which leaves Britain better off than remaining in. The lunatics have actually taken over the asylum. Corbyn, the opposition leader is just as insane, since he proposes a "Brexit for jobs". This is utter fantasy since Britain outside the EU won't have the money to create any jobs worth having.
There's a mass "People's Vote" march in London on Saturday, with people coming from all over the nation.(s) There are even some ex-pats who live in Europe (who will have their own problems created by Brexit) coming to join. Having said that, millions have protested before, from Blair's Iraq to "***** Power" last January, with little to show, but this one's looking to be BIG.
 
What could be more democratic than giving the people the final informed say on whatever squalid deal is cobbled together at the last minute?

News bulletin from Channel 4 (The BBC is no longer the newscaster of choice. It's too too Tory. )
 
Last edited:
Brexit- Will UK have a second referendum on Brexit deal?

There should be a second referendum. I think the Brits now better understand how they were conned by the Brexit crowd.
 
PeteEU said:
1) The original referendum was non binding.
Click to expand...

Indeed, because in Britain, Parliament is sovereign, not the people. But that is an irrelevancy since, by that same token, a second referendum would be "non-binding" as well. So to call for another non-binding referendum that you do not think has any legal power is a non-starter, and I do not see by what principle you would argue for it.

PeteEU said:
2) The original referendum was tainted with criminal activity by the leave campaign.
Click to expand...

There was mendacious behavior on both sides, not just the Leave Campaign. Which is what we, in the West, call "politics." Perhaps in Denmark the Royal Family has political campaigners who exaggerate or lie executed for treason. But to say that exaggerations, hyperbole and outright lies amount to criminal behavior and thus should be the pretext for dismissing outcomes that you disagree with is just that: A pretext for ignoring democratic outcomes that you disagree with.

PeteEU said:
And finally.. what is more democratic than having a referendum on the final "divorce" bill?
Click to expand...

Well, when the people who are charged with leaving (i.e., the Conservative government under Theresa May) appear to be actively trying to sabotage the process by negotiating the worst, most unpalatable deal possible and then turn around to the British people to give them the choice through a second referendum, I think the more appropriate course of action would be a vote of no confidence.

A good debate on the topic:

 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
Indeed, because in Britain, Parliament is sovereign, not the people. But that is an irrelevancy since, by that same token, a second referendum would be "non-binding" as well. So to call for another non-binding referendum that you do not think has any legal power is a non-starter, and I do not see by what principle you would argue for it.
Click to expand...

Funny.. you say it yourself, the British Parliament is sovereign, so they can choose to make it a BINDING referendum..

There was mendacious behavior on both sides, not just the Leave Campaign. Which is what we, in the West, call "politics." Perhaps in Denmark the Royal Family has political campaigners who exaggerate or lie executed for treason. But to say that exaggerations, hyperbole and outright lies amount to criminal behavior and thus should be the pretext for dismissing outcomes that you disagree with is just that: A pretext for ignoring democratic outcomes that you disagree with.
Click to expand...

I am talking about..

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44856992

they literally broke the law. Not talking about lies or "politics"... but actual breaking the law.

Well, when the people who are charged with leaving (i.e., the Conservative government under Theresa May) appear to be actively trying to sabotage the process by negotiating the worst, most unpalatable deal possible and then turn around to the British people to give them the choice through a second referendum, I think the more appropriate course of action would be a vote of no confidence.
Click to expand...

Problem is that it is too late. The EU laid down its conditions from the start, but it took the UK ... hell they still have not laid down their conditions to leaving. They are all over the place and doing stupid things that are not needed. Like leaving the open skies or nuclear cooperation treaties.. zero reason to leave them and yet that is what they have done. I agree that the UK government is incompetent, but that has more to do with Mogg and David Davis being absolute idiots, and then there is Boris the buffoon. The fact that Mogg and Davis both have advocated no tariff trade and saying it is "simple" and cheaper to be outside the EU, shows an incompetence and frankly the lying piece of **** they are..

Take the whole thing about EU citizens in the UK and the UK citizens in the EU. It would be easy to solve, if the UK government from the start came out and said that EU citizens living and working in the UK on the day of withdrawal will have the same rights and privileges as UK citizens. They did not.. the UK government dragged their feet and still do in many aspects on this issue. There is has been no doubt from the start what the EU stance was.. that UK citizens would retain their rights in the EU as long as the UK lived up to its obligations... and yet the UK refuses to clarify their own stance.. why is that?

I have friends in Spain who all are worried sick on what will happen to their health coverage after the 30th of March.. or if they can get their pensions here at all. All such things should have been a priority for the UK before any trade deals or whatever, and yet there is zero information on what will happen because the UK has refused or been incapable in even starting to negotiate anything.. why?
 
PeteEU said:
1) The original referendum was non binding.
2) The original referendum was tainted with criminal activity by the leave campaign.

And finally.. what is more democratic than having a referendum on the final "divorce" bill?
Click to expand...

What you have not quite got your heads around is that the British body politic has chosen to run with the leave vote. There has been no significant push back. They generally want out. Don't want to say that they do but....

The UK is going.

That NI may end up caught between the 2 with the best of both is also possible.

There may be a vote in NI so the Organe men can be side stepped.
 
PeteEU said:
Funny.. you say it yourself, the British Parliament is sovereign, so they can choose to make it a BINDING referendum..



I am talking about..

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44856992

they literally broke the law. Not talking about lies or "politics"... but actual breaking the law.



Problem is that it is too late. The EU laid down its conditions from the start, but it took the UK ... hell they still have not laid down their conditions to leaving. They are all over the place and doing stupid things that are not needed. Like leaving the open skies or nuclear cooperation treaties.. zero reason to leave them and yet that is what they have done. I agree that the UK government is incompetent, but that has more to do with Mogg and David Davis being absolute idiots, and then there is Boris the buffoon. The fact that Mogg and Davis both have advocated no tariff trade and saying it is "simple" and cheaper to be outside the EU, shows an incompetence and frankly the lying piece of **** they are..

Take the whole thing about EU citizens in the UK and the UK citizens in the EU. It would be easy to solve, if the UK government from the start came out and said that EU citizens living and working in the UK on the day of withdrawal will have the same rights and privileges as UK citizens. They did not.. the UK government dragged their feet and still do in many aspects on this issue. There is has been no doubt from the start what the EU stance was.. that UK citizens would retain their rights in the EU as long as the UK lived up to its obligations... and yet the UK refuses to clarify their own stance.. why is that?

I have friends in Spain who all are worried sick on what will happen to their health coverage after the 30th of March.. or if they can get their pensions here at all. All such things should have been a priority for the UK before any trade deals or whatever, and yet there is zero information on what will happen because the UK has refused or been incapable in even starting to negotiate anything.. why?
Click to expand...

The UK government's position on citizen's rights has always been the the resident at the time of leaving will have the full rights that the other residents have if it is reciprical with the EU.

It took the EU a long time to get the idea that the UK government would not act like a beaten school boy aged 6.
 
PeteEU said:
Funny.. you say it yourself, the British Parliament is sovereign, so they can choose to make it a BINDING referendum..
Click to expand...

Indeed they could. I see no reason for them to do so, for two reasons: First, because I believe legislatures should remain sovereign and I actually despise referendums (my home state of California is in love with them) as they are an abdication of legislative responsibility and accountability. But, going to my second point, once a legislature so foolishly gives the decision to the people, and the people decide in a way that the majority of the legislature disagrees with, I believe the results should be abided by. I believe the legitimacy of the legislature is called into question when they actively go against and do everything in their power to undermine the popular mandate that was given to the people. Because at that point, what are referenda other than just a massive opinion poll or suggestion box?

PeteEU said:
I am talking about..

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44856992

they literally broke the law. Not talking about lies or "politics"... but actual breaking the law.
Click to expand...

As did the Remain campaign, for which they were fined. Examples of political campaigns violating campaign finance regulations are so common that to hold them up as an example of the illegitimacy of the resulting referendum is right up there with trying to claim that the results should be discounted because members of the Leave or Remain campaign had unpaid parking tickets. It is an utter non sequitur.

If it is your argument that the results would have been markedly different had the Leave Campaign not broken campaign finance laws and people would have markedly changed their votes otherwise, and that extra spending garnered them the million-plus votes, I think such a claim beggars beliefs. Again, it appears nothing more than a pretext to ignore or dismiss democratic outcomes that you dislike.

PeteEU said:
Problem is that it is too late. The EU laid down its conditions from the start, but it took the UK ... hell they still have not laid down their conditions to leaving. They are all over the place and doing stupid things that are not needed. Like leaving the open skies or nuclear cooperation treaties.. zero reason to leave them and yet that is what they have done. I agree that the UK government is incompetent, but that has more to do with Mogg and David Davis being absolute idiots, and then there is Boris the buffoon. The fact that Mogg and Davis both have advocated no tariff trade and saying it is "simple" and cheaper to be outside the EU, shows an incompetence and frankly the lying piece of **** they are..

Take the whole thing about EU citizens in the UK and the UK citizens in the EU. It would be easy to solve, if the UK government from the start came out and said that EU citizens living and working in the UK on the day of withdrawal will have the same rights and privileges as UK citizens. They did not.. the UK government dragged their feet and still do in many aspects on this issue. There is has been no doubt from the start what the EU stance was.. that UK citizens would retain their rights in the EU as long as the UK lived up to its obligations... and yet the UK refuses to clarify their own stance.. why is that?

I have friends in Spain who all are worried sick on what will happen to their health coverage after the 30th of March.. or if they can get their pensions here at all. All such things should have been a priority for the UK before any trade deals or whatever, and yet there is zero information on what will happen because the UK has refused or been incapable in even starting to negotiate anything.. why?
Click to expand...

Of the many things we disagree upon, we are not in disagreement there. Again, it must be remembered: Theresa May was never for leaving the EU. She is, by all indicators, acting in a manner that a loyal apparatchik of Brussels would, not wanting the U.K. to be independent and to develop a model of self-governance yet with economic cooperation with the EU like that of Norway's or Switzerland's. From my personal perspective, it would appear that the Theresa May government is actively dithering and trying to negotiate the worst deal possible for the United Kingdom to make it so unpalatable to leave that even the people who voted to leave cry out "Enough! We'll stay!" In my opinion, PeterEU, you should be cheering her on, because her apparently feigned incompetence is most likely what will keep the UK inside the European Union.
 
Last edited:
Tim the plumber said:
The UK government's position on citizen's rights has always been the the resident at the time of leaving will have the full rights that the other residents have if it is reciprical with the EU.

It took the EU a long time to get the idea that the UK government would not act like a beaten school boy aged 6.
Click to expand...

No it has not.. the UK government had and has no position. Every time May or any government minister was asked, they dogged the question.

How do I know this? Because people here in the EU and people in the UK have NO idea what is going to happen because the UK government has not stated what is going to happen. People who have lived in the UK for 20 or more years are being told to prepare to leave because they dont have enough links to the UK.. despite being married to a Brit, having British children and in one case.. being a former local politician and school teacher in.. ENGLISH!

Also IF the UK had/has done as you say.. then why are EU citizens flooding out of the UK because of the doubts? Why are EU citizens being denied mortgages and other services, despite being legal residents?
 
Tim the plumber said:
What you have not quite got your heads around is that the British body politic has chosen to run with the leave vote. There has been no significant push back. They generally want out. Don't want to say that they do but....

The UK is going.

That NI may end up caught between the 2 with the best of both is also possible.

There may be a vote in NI so the Organe men can be side stepped.
Click to expand...

The UK does not have to go, but yes I think they are. That does not mean that it will be an easy or better outside the EU. All signs point to it being hard, expensive and way worse outside the EU. But it all depends on the willingness of the UK to deal with Northern Ireland. There is a logical and simple solution, but the DUP is blocking it.

Regardless, the UK citizens abroad and in the UK, should have a say on the final divorce bill. THAT is democratic.
 
Felis Leo said:
Indeed they could. I see no reason for them to do so, for two reasons: First, because I believe legislatures should remain sovereign and I actually despise referendums (my home state of California is in love with them) as they are an abdication of legislative responsibility and accountability. But, going to my second point, once a legislature so foolishly gives the decision to the people, and the people decide in a way that the majority of the legislature disagrees with, I believe the results should be abided by. I believe the legitimacy of the legislature is called into question when they actively go against and do everything in their power to undermine the popular mandate that was given to the people. Because at that point, what are referenda other than just a massive opinion poll or suggestion box?
Click to expand...

So you are against democracy.. check.

As did the Remain campaign, for which they were fined. Examples of political campaigns violating campaign finance regulations are so common that to hold them up as an example of the illegitimacy of the resulting referendum is right up there with trying to claim that the results should be discounted because members of the Leave or Remain campaign had unpaid parking tickets. It is an utter non sequitur.
Click to expand...

FT is behind a paywall.

If it is your argument that the results would have been markedly different had the Leave Campaign not broken campaign finance laws and people would have markedly changed their votes otherwise, and that extra spending garnered them the million-plus votes, I think such a claim beggars beliefs. Again, it appears nothing more than a pretext to ignore or dismiss democratic outcomes that you dislike.
Click to expand...

Yes it most likely would. And every 4 to 5 years, democracy changes outcomes with elections.. so why not redo a referendum when we know more about the consequences?

Of the many things we disagree upon, we are not in disagreement there. Again, it must be remembered: Theresa May was never for leaving the EU. She is, by all indicators, acting in a manner that a loyal apparatchik of Brussels would, not wanting the U.K. to be independent and to develop a model of self-governance yet with economic cooperation with the EU like that of Norway's or Switzerland's. From my personal perspective, it would appear that the Theresa May government is actively dithering and trying to negotiate the worst deal possible for the United Kingdom to make it so unpalatable to leave that even the people who voted to leave cry out "Enough! We'll stay!" In my opinion, PeterEU, you should be cheering her on, because her apparently feigned incompetence is most likely what will keep the UK inside the European Union.
Click to expand...

Both Norway and Switzerland pay into the EU and have to have open borders. Their "self-governance" is in many aspects less than an EU member. Why? Denmark is a member of the EU and sits at the table during negotiations on new rules and laws. It gets to vote on said rules and laws. Norway has to follow most rules and laws without having any input or vote on them... so who has more "self-governance"?
 
PeteEU said:
No it has not.. the UK government had and has no position. Every time May or any government minister was asked, they dogged the question.

How do I know this? Because people here in the EU and people in the UK have NO idea what is going to happen because the UK government has not stated what is going to happen. People who have lived in the UK for 20 or more years are being told to prepare to leave because they dont have enough links to the UK.. despite being married to a Brit, having British children and in one case.. being a former local politician and school teacher in.. ENGLISH!

Also IF the UK had/has done as you say.. then why are EU citizens flooding out of the UK because of the doubts? Why are EU citizens being denied mortgages and other services, despite being legal residents?
Click to expand...

Because the legal position has not been resolved. That is they have no legal guarantee because the EU will not give a reciprical gurantee.

Obviously this will happen, the EU will have to give this gurantee. Just it will take them getting over the jilting.
 
PeteEU said:
The UK does not have to go, but yes I think they are. That does not mean that it will be an easy or better outside the EU. All signs point to it being hard, expensive and way worse outside the EU. But it all depends on the willingness of the UK to deal with Northern Ireland. There is a logical and simple solution, but the DUP is blocking it.

Regardless, the UK citizens abroad and in the UK, should have a say on the final divorce bill. THAT is democratic.
Click to expand...

Complex questions are generally best answered by the professionals we have elected to do that job.

Whem the final negotiated deal is presented to parliament enough Labour MPs will vote for it so that the governement can do withpout the DUP. That they are the best good cop/bad cop act going is just an advantage.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Because the legal position has not been resolved. That is they have no legal guarantee because the EU will not give a reciprical gurantee.

Obviously this will happen, the EU will have to give this gurantee. Just it will take them getting over the jilting.
Click to expand...

It was not the EU who spoke of people as bargaining chips. It was not the EU who excluded both EU nationals living in Britain, and British nationals living in the EU, from voting The negotiations have essentially consisted of the EU laying out the process for leaving, and the May government fighting like ferrets in a sack over positions which the EU had already excluded. May seems oblivious to the fact that she chose to leave and there is no onus on the EU to roll over and comply with her party political wishes, even if she/they knew what they were.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Complex questions are generally best answered by the professionals we have elected to do that job.
Click to expand...


LOL, the "professionals" are the civil servants who all are against Brexit.. The politicians are not professionals and many have no clue about even basic economics or international trade.. INCLUDING the 3 head dudes of the leave campaign.

Whem the final negotiated deal is presented to parliament enough Labour MPs will vote for it so that the governement can do withpout the DUP. That they are the best good cop/bad cop act going is just an advantage.
Click to expand...

What final negotiated deal? You do understand the problem right? Clock is ticking.. the UK has 10 days to find a deal for it to work by March.. and they are no where near a deal even though 90% supposedly has been agreed.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Because the legal position has not been resolved. That is they have no legal guarantee because the EU will not give a reciprical gurantee.
Click to expand...


Yes they did. The EU stance has been from the start that British citizens in the EU will not have a status change in any agreement.. the sad fact is, that it is the EU that is defending British citizens in the EU against the British government!


Obviously this will happen, the EU will have to give this gurantee. Just it will take them getting over the jilting.
Click to expand...

They have. It is the UK that has not given any guarantee and in fact done the opposite.
 
The march for a final say on any Brexit deal (or worse no deal) "The Peoples Vote" has started with a sea of blue and yellow. It must be big because the (leave-promoting) BBC even showed a clip on the news!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45926996
 
PeteEU said:
So you are against democracy.. check.
Click to expand...

Let us not project, PeterEU. The reason I am against referenda is not because I am against democracy; I am against legislatures abandoning their responsibility to pass laws through referendums in order to avoid accountability, and then claim that they are doing so in the name of democracy. Especially because, as you point out, the people who vote are often bleakly uninformed on the issues andsubject to emotional appeals, mendacious propaganda campaigns, and false promises. And in referendums, no legislator is there to be held accountable for his or her voting record. But I nevertheless accept the results of referendums when they occur as expressions of legitimate lawmaking power. You, on the other hand, seem to be against the very legitimacy of democratic outcomes only when the vote does not go the way you wanted. It appears that the only principle you operate under is that legitimacy derives itself from the ends that are achieved rather than the means by which they are achieved. Am I wrong?

PeteEU said:
FT is behind a paywall.
Click to expand...

Sorry about that. Here you go.

PeteEU said:
Yes it most likely would. And every 4 to 5 years, democracy changes outcomes with elections.. so why not redo a referendum when we know more about the consequences?
Click to expand...

It is a good question. One that is hard to answer, because we have a situation in which a majority of the people wanted to leave, but a majority of the parliament left, right and center wishes to remain. And as I keep repeating and as you appear to be conceding: Theresa May is blundering along in such an apparently incompetent manner that one is forced to ask the question of whether she is genuinely this incompetent, or if there is a method to her madness and she is engaging in sabotage? It is like a restaurant patron ordering a meal that was on the menu that the chef hates cooking, and in response the chef purposefully poisons the meal for the patron in order to dissuade the patrons from ordering the meal in the future.

PeteEU said:
Both Norway and Switzerland pay into the EU and have to have open borders. Their "self-governance" is in many aspects less than an EU member. Why? Denmark is a member of the EU and sits at the table during negotiations on new rules and laws. It gets to vote on said rules and laws. Norway has to follow most rules and laws without having any input or vote on them... so who has more "self-governance"?
Click to expand...

We are talking at cross-purposes. You are still hung up on the vote of whether Britain should leave or remain. My argument is that since Britain has chosen to leave, they can opt for a Swiss or Norwegian model.
 
I picked other. I don't know. The Brits could cave to the globalists or they might not cave to the globalists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom