National News Brexit - the Deal or No Deal poll

Brexit - Deal or No Deal?

  • Deal

    Votes: 51 29.1%
  • No Deal

    Votes: 77 44.0%
  • Call in the Donald

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • Call in Noel Edmonds

    Votes: 8 4.6%
  • I don't care anymore

    Votes: 37 21.1%

  • Total voters
    175
There was a referendum back in the 70s with an overwhelming vote. Some people have been trying to overturn it for 40 years.
 
Also we were promised a vote before going in. Instead of which parliament took us into the EEC in 1973. Heath the then PM said that was full hearted consent of the British people...31%
So called renegotiations with the EEC with the main political parties favouring staying in resulted in 63/37 in favour.
Once we are into an economic agreement the rules started to change with the objective being a political union.
That is why we had another referendum. Now we have the problem of the pro EU parliament in deadlock with the EU
 
So lets have a referendum based on genuine info.

I agree on Cameron.
You wont get a referendum based on genuine info, politicians are at worst natural born liars and at best economical with the truth. All through the process of trying to leave we have had "experts" and politicians insisting that we are heading into the abyss. These are the same politicians that promised emergency budgets, worthless properties and pensions. Are the "experts" the same that told the same story, "experts" that thought it would be great for Greece to join the EU or another set of "experts" that want to peddle their opinion as fact (or are paid/told to)? History will tell the truth (if we ever leave).
 
So if the last referendum wasn't based on genuine information, should there be prosecutions of those involved into telling those alleged lies?

Would Remainers be happy if a Leave majority parliament took a 2nd vote and did nothing with it because they thought the people got it wrong?
 
What people voted for in the 70’s was a common market for trade which worked well until the Eu was inflicted on us.

But following the argument that a people's vote is undemocratic then the 2016 Referendum was undemocratic. That Europe changed was irrelevant as the vote had chosen to join in the 70s. The time involved is irrelevant.

So either people have the right to change/not change their mind in a vote when things change (as they have over the last 2 years with the info now available on options available and the implications) or they don't. You can't have it both ways.
 
You wont get a referendum based on genuine info, politicians are at worst natural born liars and at best economical with the truth. All through the process of trying to leave we have had "experts" and politicians insisting that we are heading into the abyss. These are the same politicians that promised emergency budgets, worthless properties and pensions. Are the "experts" the same that told the same story, "experts" that thought it would be great for Greece to join the EU or another set of "experts" that want to peddle their opinion as fact (or are paid/told to)? History will tell the truth (if we ever leave).

Funnily enough experts, companies and Govt will be doing papers/plans etc on the various potential Brexit options (Ferry contracts, Lorry park, Just in time, Green cards to prove car insurance, setting tariffs, import/export paperwork, research grants bidding, customs arrangements when we won't have the required staff needed, medicine licencing etc etc etc of with hundreds, probably thousands of arrangements*) so the implications of options will be available etc. Try googling the implications for a hard Brexit (even Rees-Mogg suggested it would take 50 years to see the benefits he reckons will happen), the info is out there so is EFTA etc.

People will be voting on actual options such as Remain, EFTA and No deal Brexit so the implications etc will be a lot clearer rather than the myriad of abstract suggestions of Leave in 2016.

*There will be unknowns as well but it will be a better idea than in 2016.
 
So if the last referendum wasn't based on genuine information, should there be prosecutions of those involved into telling those alleged lies?

Would Remainers be happy if a Leave majority parliament took a 2nd vote and did nothing with it because they thought the people got it wrong?

Should there be prosecutions in a GE would then be an equally valid question.

You know there were lies Gary, with the obvious being the slogan on the bus or the scare tactics about Turkey by Farage, Remain had theirs as well. They aren't 'alledged' as you well know, there were some absolute whoppers told.

I've already answered your 2nd question. A legally binding referendum as Parliament would know what the voters actually wanted rather than a myriad of vague, abstract (Sunlit Uplands rubbish) ideas, with no clear option.
 
In some respects, it gets to the core of the issue. Do we believe in democracy and not winning at times, or do we believe in democracy, but only when it's the result we believe in?
Yes and No, respectively, but....
....is there not a third element along the lines of a Democracy where we are allowed to revisit a decision when the reality of the result is not what the people who voted for it, errr..., voted for?
 
Should there be prosecutions in a GE would then be an equally valid question.

You know there were lies Gary, with the obvious being the slogan on the bus or the scare tactics about Turkey by Farage, Remain had theirs as well. They aren't 'alledged' as you well know, there were some absolute whoppers told.

I've already answered your 2nd question. A legally binding referendum as Parliament would know what the voters actually wanted rather than a myriad of vague, abstract (Sunlit Uplands rubbish) ideas, with no clear option.
To be fair, the amount of money on the bus was proved to be valid on more than one occasion - yes, I know. Of course the use of how it is calculated is open for debate, but it's no different to some figures the Govt came out with or the EU.... Did Corbyn lie to students at the last election? Did Nick Clegg also do that in 2010?

Note that I used the term alleged to protect this forum in case someone wanted to take it further from the outside.

Yes and No, respectively, but....
....is there not a third element along the lines of a Democracy where we are allowed to revisit a decision when the reality of the result is not what the people who voted for it, errr..., voted for?
It is... But we have to create rigour on how we choose to do it. The last 2 referenda in this country have caused the other side to scream re-vote as soon as it happened - like they cannot accept they did not win. We can't pick and choose how we use direct democracy as tool to back out of a decision that we don't like - especially when we've made other similar decisions with barely a whiff of direct democracy or care. Otherwise we would end up never doing anything?

Once Brexit has been delivered, the country is stable, then perhaps there is a right time in the medium term for a 2nd vote with a set of clear items to vote. When we haven't even delivered it yet; it's hard and for a lot of the country, confusing and I dare say, not a big priority when the NHS needs sorting and the economy needs to grow. We have to move on and stop debating the vote that has long since gone.

The fact the people's vote crew cannot even agree on the basics suggests to me that now is not the right time.
 
To be fair, the amount of money on the bus was proved to be valid on more than one occasion - yes, I know. Of course the use of how it is calculated is open for debate, but it's no different to some figures the Govt came out with or the EU.... Did Corbyn lie to students at the last election? Did Nick Clegg also do that in 2010?

Note that I used the term alleged to protect this forum in case someone wanted to take it further from the outside.


It is... But we have to create rigour on how we choose to do it. The last 2 referenda in this country have caused the other side to scream re-vote as soon as it happened - like they cannot accept they did not win. We can't pick and choose how we use direct democracy as tool to back out of a decision that we don't like - especially when we've made other similar decisions with barely a whiff of direct democracy or care. Otherwise we would end up never doing anything?

Once Brexit has been delivered, the country is stable, then perhaps there is a right time in the medium term for a 2nd vote with a set of clear items to vote. When we haven't even delivered it yet; it's hard and for a lot of the country, confusing and I dare say, not a big priority when the NHS needs sorting and the economy needs to grow. We have to move on and stop debating the vote that has long since gone.

The fact the people's vote crew cannot even agree on the basics suggests to me that now is not the right time.

The bus was at best disingenuous. Boris (et al) carried on spouting the figure (including on the TV debates) from the bus long after it was challenged. This doesn't even take into account, Brexiteers making 'suggestions' for spending that money 20 times over.

Following your logic about direct democracy and using referenda, then the 2016 referendum has no democratic mandate so should be ignored.

What Brexit is to be delivered? How long until the country is stable (Rees-Mogg opined 50 years for the benefits from his no deal)? Something the 2016 Referendum didn't cover and nor did the Leave Campaign with its myriad of suggestions.

Brexit is the most important thing this parliament has to decide as it directly affects the NHS, economy etc basically everything. The effects will likely vary from nothing to major depending on what Brexit looks like.

Also, we would lose the veto, rebate etc if we leave and then applied to join the EU again.

The people on here who want another referendum seem pretty clear and similar on what they want. :)
 
It is... But we have to create rigour on how we choose to do it. The last 2 referenda in this country have caused the other side to scream re-vote as soon as it happened - like they cannot accept they did not win. We can't pick and choose how we use direct democracy as tool to back out of a decision that we don't like - especially when we've made other similar decisions with barely a whiff of direct democracy or care. Otherwise we would end up never doing anything?

Personally, I think the last two years show (and this is something I've been banging on about for years) that Britain hasn't a clue how to do direct democracy. We have, after all, only done three referenda nationwide in our entire history.

The politicians asked an oversimplified question for a complex problem, got a small majority in the direction they weren't expecting, and three years later they still don't have a clue how to respond to it. But I'm really unconvinced that the answer is to hold another referendum.

We're a parliamentary democracy. We have been since 1215/1649/1689/1721/1918* (delete as appropriate, depending on your view of history). It's what we know how to do.

So our parliamentarians need to do their jobs, and make a decision - as they were elected to do - based on what they think is right for the country.
And if they think that's to overturn the referendum and stay in Europe, that's what they should vote to do. And they can make that argument to their constituents at the next election. If they think it's to leave without a deal, ditto.
 
If they overturn the vote in the referendum they are scoundrels and not fit to govern.
The country has been asked what do you think and if parliament goes against that I’d expect unrest to follow, and I’d personally hope it results in mass demonstrations.
I just hope the British don’t meekly accept staying in the EU is the only option.
 
There was a huge turnout by historical standards in the referendum. 72% from memory.

Many of those who voted were young people who were eligible to vote for the first time.

Many people voted who don’t normally vote.

They were told that their vote would count, would make a difference, their decision would be implimented.
No ifs, no buts.

The potential damage to the public trust in the democratic political system of this country is absolutely massive.
 
I agree. When I hear young people complaining about their futures maybe they should have expressed their feelings in the vote. Polls show many couldn’t be bothered to turn up
 
The bus was at best disingenuous. Boris (et al) carried on spouting the figure (including on the TV debates) from the bus long after it was challenged. This doesn't even take into account, Brexiteers making 'suggestions' for spending that money 20 times over.

Following your logic about direct democracy and using referenda, then the 2016 referendum has no democratic mandate so should be ignored.

What Brexit is to be delivered? How long until the country is stable (Rees-Mogg opined 50 years for the benefits from his no deal)? Something the 2016 Referendum didn't cover and nor did the Leave Campaign with its myriad of suggestions.

Brexit is the most important thing this parliament has to decide as it directly affects the NHS, economy etc basically everything. The effects will likely vary from nothing to major depending on what Brexit looks like.

Also, we would lose the veto, rebate etc if we leave and then applied to join the EU again.

The people on here who want another referendum seem pretty clear and similar on what they want. :)
I don't doubt both sides had serious sleights of hand but I did laugh when I saw 2 separate reports that said 350 million was actually correct, and one said it actually under estimated the figure.

If Cameron had not said, this is the only chance, then I would agree. However he made it plainly clearly to all of us that this was a once in a generation vote, and people voted on that as such. If he said, we'll take the result and use it as a basis to engage and negotiate with the EU, but no guarantees, it's a different question. How does it make politics credible to the 3 million "no ones" who voted in that election if the politicians rip it up as it doesn't suit them? On a whim they wouldn't consider the other way.

Frankly, after watching Question Time last night, a 2nd referendum will turn into a monumental :poop::poop::poop: show that won't put us anywhere different than where we are now. The politicians are as largely as clueless as each other on anything than soundbites. I've seen more original thought and debate on here. Diane Abbott didn't fail to disappoint.
 
Personally, I think the last two years show (and this is something I've been banging on about for years) that Britain hasn't a clue how to do direct democracy. We have, after all, only done three referenda nationwide in our entire history.

The politicians asked an oversimplified question for a complex problem, got a small majority in the direction they weren't expecting, and three years later they still don't have a clue how to respond to it. But I'm really unconvinced that the answer is to hold another referendum.

We're a parliamentary democracy. We have been since 1215/1649/1689/1721/1918* (delete as appropriate, depending on your view of history). It's what we know how to do.

So our parliamentarians need to do their jobs, and make a decision - as they were elected to do - based on what they think is right for the country.
And if they think that's to overturn the referendum and stay in Europe, that's what they should vote to do. And they can make that argument to their constituents at the next election. If they think it's to leave without a deal, ditto.
We don't. I suspect Cameron thought after IndyRef, that it was a wheeze he could win easily. Except on Brexit, the answer he got wasn't the one he expected. And frankly, the vast majority of MPs were as clueless as the public then as they are now. And aren't enthralled with be asked to enact so direct instructions for us proles rather than using their judgement first. Quite a bitter pill to swallow
 
If they overturn the vote in the referendum they are scoundrels and not fit to govern.
The country has been asked what do you think and if parliament goes against that I’d expect unrest to follow, and I’d personally hope it results in mass demonstrations.
I just hope the British don’t meekly accept staying in the EU is the only option.

If you think their scoundrels and not fit to govern, then it'll be your democratic right to try and turf them out at the next general election. And if the British public did then elect a parliament that was majority in favor of a hard Brexit, then a hard Brexit is what we would get. At the moment, the British public has elected a parliament that is so hopeless split between a range of positions that they can't find a solution.

Regardless, I think mass demonstrations and civil unrest of some sort is pretty much guaranteed at this point in time, whatever the outcome. The two sides are too entrenched, too passionate and too numerous to expect anything less.......
 
For what it is worth, MPs accepted Hard Brexit was on the cards when they triggered Article 50. If they didn't believe it, they should have been better informed.

Interesting to see Poland's Foreign Ministers comments about a 5 year time limit on the back stop
 
Back
Top Bottom