2Nd Referendum

[bainbrig]

Brexit. The ONLY answer. A second referendum with a two-thirds majority.

Is there a statesman or woman capable of putting this into practise?

[murraymints]

goes against the whole ethos of democracy !! can't keep tossing the coin till you get the desired outcome..it is NOT a best of three..Westminster take your instruction from the people !!

[Prudie]

Even if, if and if and we stay in, the EU are always going to treat us like a piece of *** going forwards.

[naomi24]

And if that happened with a 'Leave' result, then what?

[murraymints]

we survived well before EEC we will survive post EU..and others will follow.... is no longer a union to encourage trade..'tis a bank for the corrupt and ill managed irresponsible nation members !!

[-Talbot-]

The vote would still be 'leave' and by a bigger majority.


How would you word it, bainbrig?

[bhg481]

I think, with hindsight, that we should have required a bigger majority last time. Not because the result wasn't the one I wanted but a close result was always likely to end in the squabbling that it has. A second referendum, though, is not the answer; we have to heed the result and leave.

[bainbrig]

No, I’ve never believed in ‘total’ democracy, otherwise there’d be public hangings, burnt-out mosques, no benefits for anyone, and all the other things the mob bay for.

[Old_Geezer]

Wot ! Again ?
No, keep on asking to be let off doing one's duty is the sign of a weak government.
Anyway, what chance of getting a two thirds majority voting to call off Brexit ?

[bainbrig]

Asking the mob its ‘opinion’ on capital punishment might be democratic, but it’s also barmy.

[dannyk13]

Won't happen

[Milo2]

If you don’t get the outcome you want, do we keep having another referendum until you like the result?

[-Talbot-]

bainbrig
No, I’ve never believed in ‘total’ democracy, otherwise there’d be public hangings, burnt-out mosques



That'll be the undemocratic mosques, would it?

[BANANASPLITS]

You tell em as it is nigel!!
https://youtu.be/XR2snMKWbUM

[Old_Geezer]

I don't believe for a moment that anyone truly thinks that, were there ever a referendum on whether we should burn out mosques, that it'd result in a "yes" decision. (What caused that suggestion, hope it wasn't wishful thinking ?)

[retrocop]

When the Scots won the vote to remain in the union I notice that no one in Government threw their toys out the pram and demanded the exiteers be allowed a second vote. It was accepted,albeit reluctantly, by those wanting out. Stay obviously meant stay in that vote.
If we had a second referendum on Brexit then the Scots should be allowed a second referendum first. The Brexit remainers would lose even more votes if that occurred in a second Brexit referendum.

[Old_Geezer]

Nige is a great orator.

[New Judge]

So basically then, 66% of those voting could vote to leave and we'd still not do so? What happens if less than two-thirds, but more than 50% of those who vote opt to remain? Do we remain? By what logic do you to reach that conclusion? Not on the "status quo" argument, surely, because the status quo (the existing state of affairs) at present is that we leave on 29th March because that's what the law, enacted by Parliament, currently says.

To conflate this argument with public hangings and burning of mosques is somewhat childish to say the least. The Government, of the day, mindful that the issue of EU membership was a contentious constitutional issue, asked the electorate what it wanted. It was a binary question and the answer from the majority was to leave. The current government must get on and honour their predecessors' pledge, not fanny about moaning that it's all too difficult.

Just out of interest, if we were not currently a member of the EU and a referendum was held to decide whether we should join, would you insist on a two-thirds majority in that vote too? If so, why? It might help us understand why you believe such a majority would be necessary in a vote to remain or leave.

[jim360]

It's actually pretty standard in democracies for "supermajorities" in one form or another to be necessary to force through change. But one also needs to be consistent. A second referendum, held on the same or similar question as the one in 2016, requiring a supermajority to Leave would obviously suit my interests pretty well, but such a change of the rules can't possibly be acceptable. May as well not hold a 2nd referendum at all. And besides, as NJ points out, the status quo is currently leaving, either on March 29th or certainly not long after.

I would like to see a second referendum, if there is a way to ask the question such that there can be no ambiguity about the outcome or how to implement it, and NJ is wrong that the current government "must" honour their predecessors' pledge, constitutionally at least; but much as I would wish that referendums in future respect the usual requirement of supermajorities, especially for such a wide-reaching change as this one, the proper time to set such rules was years ago.