Would You Back A Second Referendum

[Bobbisox1]

I would not and if one was implemented I won’t vote again, there’s calls for another one, what happened to democracy ?

[Arksided]

I hate the gov' anyway... but like Mamya says ^.

[Arksided]

< back a page ;-)

[naomi24]

Jim, //You do need to stop seeing spin where there is none. //

I don't see spin where there is none.

[jim360]

You manifestly do. I was not spinning. You claimed there was spin. One of us is wrong. It wasn't me.

Saying the EU are our biggest trading partners is clearly correct, and is not in any sense misleading. The question of trade deficits doesn't come into it at all.

[naomi24]

//Saying the EU are our biggest trading partners is clearly correct //

As is saying //We are net contributors. We buy more from them than they buy from us. If they didn’t they’d have happily waved us goodbye. Not difficult to see why they haven’t. How they love our money. //

... but you left much of that out in your response. Can't think why ....

[jim360]

I left it out because it is entirely irrelevant to the point that (a) the EU are our biggest trading partners, and so (b) a No Deal exit, that is certain to disrupt that trade, will be damaging. Who sells more to whom has exactly no impact on that point.

[naomi24]

You left it out because truths like that don't suit your purpose.

[Theland]

In my opinion, ref2 would increase my / our majority to leave.

[spathiphyllum]

I told naomi from day one that leaving the EU will affect our trade, she said "no it wont" and is still saying the same.

Just wait until she's proved wrong so we can go "told you so!"

[jim360]

As an aside, the idea that the EU would be waving goodbye to us if the trade balance were the other way round is equally nonsensical. I think you have made points in the past about how we are net contributors to the EU budget may make them want to keep us. That is debatable, but even granting that it might be true, that has nothing to do with the trade balance: the EU budget is entirely separate from the trading relationship.

[jim360]

Do stop telling me why I say things, Naomi. You haven't been right once yet.

[naomi24]

That would depend entirely upon the question, Theland. I've no doubt whatsoever that a new question would be worded to split the Leave vote, ensuring that Remain triumphs.

[naomi24]

I've told you before, Jim. I read what you say and I respond to what you say. Nothing more. Your agenda is crystal clear... but then you know that.

[jim360]

// I've no doubt whatsoever that a new question would be worded to split the Leave vote, ensuring that Remain triumphs. //

That's only a possibility if the referendum is between three options. As yet, though, I don't think any referendum in history has been anything other than between two options. I can't say I blame you for your pessimism here, but right now there's no majority in Parliament even for the principle of a second referendum, let alone one that is deliberately designed to use "First Past the Post" tactics to engineer a result.

[jim360]

I make no secret of the fact that I think the whole Brexit project, in its current form at least -- and probably any other form -- is bad for the UK. But I do not intentionally spin. I may get things wrong, or accidentally misinterpret them, but that's a completely different phenomenon.

I'm sick of you reading malice and duplicity into my posts. There is none and there never will be.

[Theland]

Tony Benn was a champion for democracy.
The Briexit MPs should be making much of this in the Commons but to the country through the media.

Ask the powerful five questions:

WHAT POWER HAVE YOU GOT?
WHERE DID YOU GET IT FROM?
IN WHOSE INTERESTS DO YOU EXERCISE IT?
TO WHOM ARE YOU ACCOUNTABLE?
HOW CAN WE GET RID OF YOU?

[naomi24]

//That's only a possibility if the referendum is between three options.//

Not so. The options suggested on the back of Mrs May’s deal were: Accept the deal on offer, or Remain. Since both Leavers and Remainers generally regarded that deal as poor, some Leavers would have voted Remain thereby splitting the Leave vote. No Deal should always be an option – but it never will be because leaving isn’t, and never was, the intention of the powers that be. The whole thing has been a stitch up from the start and quite shamefully, that has been encouraged by those equally duplicitous.

[ABSpareEditor]

Please be respectful when debating with users. Personal attacks and defamation of users is frowned upon.

Theland, please do try not to shout. Thank you.

[jim360]

// No Deal should always be an option ... //

Fair enough that you argue that. I did wonder if this is what you had in mind. But I don't see why an explicit "no deal" exit should ever be a seen as something to explicitly vote for. Quite apart anything else, a vote that, as JD had it, would be meant to tell the EU to "get stuffed" can never be in anybody's best interests.

Would it be a fairer referendum, in your opinion, to have a vote that was a straight up-or-down vote on the Withdrawal Agreement, where "yes" accepts it, and "no" hands the matter back to Parliament/government, rather than forcing us to Remain?

[Theland]

Ed - I did not shout, that was as printed in a copy and paste, but I take your,point and apologise for the misunderstanding.