Whats Your Thoughts On This.....

[1rovert]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3755404/Britain-NEVER-leave-EU-claims-professor-says-Boris-Fox-ignore-Leave-vote-avoid-massively-complex-withdrawal-call-second-referendum.html

Can we really trust the PM ?

[jambutty]

I haven't spoken to anyone either who regrets voting out.

[jim360]

If only there were some means of determining how many people actually *have* changed their mind since the last referendum...

[-Talbot-]

By left wing mates do you mean the type that will always call economic migrants ... refugees?

[-Talbot-]

jim360
If only there were some means of determining how many people actually *have* changed their mind since the last referendum...


Why?

[jno]

you might have missed a little tongue in cheek there, Talbot?

[jim360]

I'm not being serious really, Talbot. It's just that I find it incredibly frustrating when people project the opinions of their friends onto the whole country and use it as the basis to construct any kind of an argument about how most people think. As a case in point, the predicted referendum result based on my cross-section of friends and family would have been about 95% in favour of Remain -- probably more, in fact, as I'm only aware of two people I personally know who voted to leave (I'm fairly sure one of them wasn't actually wanting to leave exactly, either...). I'm also aware that this isn't representative of the population as a whole, as was pretty dramatically shown in the actual result.

But anyway, it would be nice if (a) people recognised that, for some Leave voters, they may have changed their minds and/ or not really wanted to Leave so strongly as others, but (b) there probably aren't enough such people (at least not yet) to have affected the result, or to change it should a rerun be held tomorrow, and anyway (c) frankly it doesn't matter either way. Referenda shouldn't be held at all if they can be overturned three months later by another one.

[mikey4444]

Talbot....I guess we must mix with different sorts of lefties then....personally, I tend not to have much to do with UKIP types !

Just shows the overwhelmingly right-wing slant of regular AB debaters.

To use AB as a judge, you would never guess that 16,141,241 people voted to remain.....48.11% of the total votes cast. Against 51.89% who voted to leave.

Hardly a landslide victory for the leave camp. although I am not arguing with the result, just pointing out how close it was. (on a 72% turnout)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016

[-Talbot-]

No I didn't, jno ... just bored of the same old ...

[jno]

Referenda shouldn't be held at all if they can be overturned three months later by another one.

in practical terms you're right. But in theory... if people have changed their minds, why would their opinion count for less now than it did in June? They are at the very least a lot better informed now.

[-Talbot-]

mikey4444
Talbot....I guess we must mix with different sorts of lefties then....personally, I tend not to have much to do with UKIP types !



I guess then that I'm just not as bigoted as you, mikey.

[mikey4444]

I'm bigoted because I disagree with you Talbot .....how does that work then ?

[ummmm]

Quite a few people I know who voted 'out' didn't really have a clue what they were voting for, they were following what other people said.

[-Talbot-]

?

I think you need to have an afternoon nap, mikey.

[-Talbot-]

And the ones voting to stay in were well informed and knew exactly what was going to happen wich ever way the result went were they, ummmm?

[ummmm]

No...but some people shouldn't vote. I would rather decisions about the country I live in be made by informed people. People who understand the pros and cons. Not by someone who doesn't know the name of our politicians and voted because that's what their dad told them to do.

[jim360]

Hard to answer, jno. At the very least, we ought to have far better-defined rules for referenda in future. They are called and conducted in a very ad hoc manner, eg the referendum on the Alternative Vote that nobody really took seriously enough and was basically only called to secure the Coalition agreement (while also kicking into the long grass any question whatsoever about the state of our electoral system); the one we just had was called as a (mostly failed) attempt to appease Eurosceptic Tories; the 2014 Independence referendum needed a new law before it could be held and then backfired rather spectacularly in various ways.

I don't have a problem in principle with referenda being held in our democracy but the rules ought to be far more consistent, and probably ought to include among other conditions a minimum set of thresholds for the "change" outcome to have effect, and a minimum time (say, five or ten years) before the same question can be put forward again. Oh, and the decision to call a referendum in the first place should be decoupled from party-political squabbling...

[Cloverjo]

I think David Cameron decided to call a referendum knocking he wouldn't be there to deal with the outcome. He's gone off to his gin and tonics in Ibiza or wherever.

Brexit won't happen. No one wanted it, really.

[jambutty]

'Nobody wanted it really' WOW !

[-Talbot-]

No he didn't, Cloverjo.


If anything since the vote I am even more convinced leaving is the right decision.

[jno]

I agree with all that, jim; I think there ought to be clear, strict rules on referenda (the Australians have them), including how often a vote can be held on a given issue (once a generation might be reasonable) and a higher majority threshold - maybe a 55-60% vote required to overturn the status quo, on the basis that the status quo also had public opinion behind it. Just making it up as you go along seems a poor way of doing anything.