Should there be a second referendum?

Don’t you think that the coming EU elections in May will see a very different regime as compared to the current intransigence.

Democracies are hard won and cost many lives, so mickyfinn don’t ever belittle our opportunity to vote, millions would love the opportunity but perhaps you still believe a Communist culture is superior to Capitalism.

Social Democracy is on the wane throughout Europe, as it has failed the workers and more importantly the voters.

To some democracies and democratic votes are only acceptable when you get your own way.

 ‘’Britain outside the EU English will decline’’ Whatever next, how desperate is that statement? Even Frank Carson could not have made that one up.

Angeleyes- It really doesn’t help any cause to belittle other posters views.

The most common language spoken in Europe is actually Russian. Second comes German followed by French and Italian. English is actually fifth. The European Commission currently uses English, French and German as its working languages. The European parliament uses 24 languages.

With Britain outside the EU in the long term English will decline in use as other languages become more widely used. It's simply a matter of demographics. As a third country in the future Britain’s influence in Europe both political and culturally will also decline.

It is surprising that supporters of Brexit don’t seem to understand there is going to be a very high cost to leaving the EU especially without a deal. That costs will not be just financial which will be considerable. Security and intelligence sharing with European countries will end. Political contacts will be reduced as the EU freezes out Britain in most areas except perhaps defence and NATO.

I believe substantial EU reforms will come next year. Slowly at first but a momentum is gathering. Macron, Verhofensdadt and Merkle say they are committed to reforms along with many other leaders. Juncker will be replaced by new generation with reform on the agenda. Sadly Britain will have no input in the process.

Communism is not the only alternative to capitalism. I am not a communist I believe in social liberal democracy. Unfettered capitalism of the Trump variety creates inequality on a grand scale. The word is becomes less equal, less tolerant, less fair as the political pendulum dangerously swings to the far right. The EU I believes is a form of antidote to that. Little wonder then that Messrs Putin and Trump the principle cheer leaders of that detest all things EU so much.

But Mickyfinn you just either don’t get it, or won’t have it. The British voted, OUT, OUT, OUT, because they are sick of Europe and everything that goes with membership. The vote is over. If you won’t accept it then go live in your beloved Europe and have done. You can then speak any language you like if anyone will tolerate listening to you.

The fact that the referendum was flawed and won by a relatively small majority, based on fraud and lies seems to have escaped your attention.

Democracy is also about satisfying and protecting the minority view.

If there was a second referendum this time based on fairness, balance and honesty and the vote result similar I would accept it. Most other remainer’s in Britain would also I am sure.

Unifying the nation is an important aim. If the country seeks that a second vote is a route to achieving it.

We have heard the fraud and lies story continually since the day you lost the democratic vote. You are insulting the intelligence of the British public who voted. Everyone knows that politicians are compulsive liars and you cannot believe a word that comes out of their mouths. We have listened to their lies and deceit all our lives and get a triple dose at every general election. It’s a weak and feeble excuse for a childish bad looser who refuses to accept democracy and show respect to his fellow citizens.

Why cant we have a vote on should we have another vote on leaving the EU, not a vote on 'Should' we leave, because we didn't like the last one,  that will come after the vote on 'Should we have another vote', of course depending on what the outcome is, after all is said and done many lies have been told, many rumours have been exploited to the full, not one person seems to have a clue what to do, so just a simple vote on..'Vote YES or NO to have another vote on leaving the EU'.

The results will surprise one and all thats for sure

Angeleyes - your attempts at provocation will not work.

A second vote is in any event is extremely unlikely unless this government is removed. There are two choices on the table. The parliamentary vote or leave without a deal. May would have to resign if a second vote took place since she has said never as long as she is PM. Her successor is likely to be Johnson who will accelerate exit without any deal whatsoever.  

So in my view the answer to the original post is Yes but it's not going to happen. 

Good idea baz, but who should vote? British citizens’, the whole of Europe, and what about those destitute countries queuing up to join the EU? What will happen if you don’t like the result of the vote? Would we have another?

What the hell are you going on about? 

Who voted to leave the EU last time, the British public because that is, who are involved in this, so have a guess who would most likely be considered to vote for this.

Why the whole of Europe then? did they have a vote on the British leaving the EU when we did vote.

What destitute countries? if the UK leaves the EU they can still join up if they want to...Can't they?

How can you not like the result of the vote, because it would be a pure and simple vote to ask the British people if we should have another vote for a referendum vote, you know like..' Hey British people do you want another vote on should we leave the EU or not'....If the answer is yes, then have another referendum vote....Now should the answer be no, then NO means No,.

At least then we might just know what way the British public want to go.

Micyfinn...l believe you have strong ties with France....can you please explain to us why the French are Rioting...and want to replace Macron...surely these Riot's are not just about a couple of cents on a Ltr of fuel ...which indecently brings it in line on what we in the UK are paying .

Yes baz you are correct.

Someone, and I would have to check back, said the vote was unfair because some people in Europe were denied a vote.

If some British citizens’ refuse to accept the vote in the democratic referendum already taken place what makes you think they will accept any vote on anything if the result is not to their liking?

The vote on leaving the EU wasn't unfair  (Only in my book)  because some people in Europe were denied a vote, if you are a legally registered citizen of the country you chose to live in should you have a vote on should the country you left behind leave the EU or not.

Still I am not saying have another vote on leaving the EU or not, because this whole thing has gone past a joke, well not really because it is a joke, a massive crude joke, then why not have a vote on 'Should we have ANOTHER VOTE on leaving the EU'. Not another referendum vote, that would come next on the outcome of the previous vote.

In most countries around the world the right to vote is based on nationality. Not residence. Britain is the exception. There is a bill that’s had its second reading going through the Commons that will abolish the 15 year residency rule moratorium on voting. In future all British nationals around the world will be able to vote in any election.

It was promised in Cameron’s last manifesto along with the referendum commitment. The Tories failed to honour that until recently. It is still not UK law and will not be until 2022.

Windtalker I have strong ties in France, you are right but I’m not going to discuss the current problems affecting the country on this thread.

After Brexit and until 2022 I along will most expats will be disenfranchised in every country where I have interests.

Pedro Sanchez the current Spanish prime minister thinks that is unacceptable. He has very recently presented a bill to the Spanish parliament to give UK residents the same voting rights as if Brexit had not taken place. Ie: local and European elections.

Important perhaps to review from a far wider perspective and recognise how wrong analyses have led us to this circumstance and if this can be resolved going forward? 

The NHS quote that most who voted remain make mention of, and refer to as a lie, was originally stated as being a GROSS figure, not net, in a televised LIVE debate PRIOR to the referendum......just like when you talk of salaries and the like, no one talks of their net salary after tax. This was seized upon by the opposition which in itself was a lie as they failed to explain the difference between gross and net, and before you know it the myth gets reinforced as fact. A classic case of reinforcement being used to perpetuate myths. But follow it through and the benefits from alternative economic analyses ( which have been proved to be more realistic) are now stated as being a greater GROSS figure not worse. Do you hear about that from the remain camp? NO!

Then let’s take the details re the economic analysis and modelling that was constantly reinforced by the remain camp in the lead up to the referendum and the massive fear campaign that they tried to generate..... well they got it wrong, but do you ever hear of them taking corrective measures to learn from their mistakes? NO! The leave camp on the other hand stated their alternative analysis prior to the referendum, which was constantly berated and called “ lies”, when in reality they appear to have been correct. And still ( sadly) we hear little of the need to reassess the modelling analysis upon which so much depends going forward. 

Next let’s take the migration statistics. The statistics on migration were, and still are, being underestimated, since the the analysis has finally been identified as being flawed, and thankfully is now subject to reassessment in terms of impact assessments......

Recently the ONS quoted, “ understanding of the latest trends in international migration1 and improving the evidence base to provide more information on the impact migrants have while they are in the UK. That includes the sectors in which they work, the communities they live in and the impact they have on public services. This programme of work, therefore forms one piece of a larger transformation plan to meet these user needs and which will begin to put administrative data at the core of evidence on migration in 2019.” 

Which begs the question why were the original FIRST HAND impact concerns identified by so many people in their own communities all too frequently berated as being “racist” in nature? Such inference in itself did a grave disservice to the need to adequately and realistically assess impacts so as to RETAIN cohesion in that process.....NOT undermine it.

So yet again you have to ask the question, are wrongful reinforcement and denials and incorrect  statistical analyses being adequately challenged for the sake of us ALL going forward? 

To bury ones head in the sand and remain unwilling to tackle the problems that have arisen by incorrect analyses “massaged” to suit an aim to remain in the EU, without willingness to admit of the need for major reform and admit to major failings , in the name of some intransigent political ideology that ironically turns out to be failing people and undermining cohesion, becomes a travesty and disservice to citizens who deserve better.

Until the problem of re-assessing analyses and formulating realistic methods of economic modelling and impact assessments is addressed, with a willingness to intellectually comprehend and adequately factor in the complex differentials between member states, with a view to finding good TIMELY but flexible solutions that adequately adjust to changing circumstance, then IMHO remaining in the EU is no longer in the best interests of citizens.

Yes baz you are correct again.

I suppose there is an issue of who can vote. Should all British passport holders be given a vote no matter where they are? How about Jack who has been in Australia for the past 40 years? I suppose the subject is just another side tracking issue introduced by the undemocratic ‘didn’t win won’t play’ brigade.

We could have a national voting day each year like Black Friday, but would we need a previous vote to decide what to vote about. What if the I don’t like the result lot demand best of 3?

I do agree the whole thing has become a shambles and a joke mainly because the politicians misjudge the result and don’t like it when they don’t get their way. The public (sheep) are there to pay taxes not make decisions.  

Mickyfinn ...its a shame you don't want to discuss the problems that the French are having a this moment...as they could be relevant ..as to why we in the UK have voted to leave the EU.

Spanish PM.Pedro Sanchez is obviously thinking with his business head on ...but unfortunately any proposal's he makes  will have to be approved by The EU...and in the words of the singer...  Amy Winehouse the answer is going to be NO NO NO.

History has shown that empires and powerful companies can grow too big and then explode and disintegrative. Maybe it is the right time to get out and go it alone. It may well be difficult and painful in the short term but a wise move in the long term, only time will tell.

ads.- The UK Statistics Authority has since said of the NHS claim this was a “clear misuse of official statistics” – most notably because the figure did not take into account the money the UK gets back from the EU after paying into the budget. Nothing too with gross or net figures.

After taking into account the rebate, the figure is believed to be closer to £250m but the question remains whether the money will actually go the NHS.

On the day after the referendum result, even Nigel Farage, who had been more closely associated with the Leave.EU campaign than Vote Leave, disowned the pledge saying it was “one of the mistakes” that had been made by those wanting us out of the bloc. 

A poll by Ipsos MORI published in June 2016 found that nearly half the British public believed the claim.

Two years on and Theresa May has now pledged additional funding for the NHS and has said the extra money will come, in part, from a “Brexit dividend”. That was done to try and pacify cabinet resistance to her plans.

Under the plans, the NHS budget will increase by £20.5bn by 2023, and the government has said this will be funded through a combination of tax rises, economic growth and money no longer sent to Brussels. Since economic growth is unlikely in the coming years this shortfall will have to be plugged by further borrowing.

The  (OBR) has however said that although there would be some savings if Britain leaves the EU, this does not take into account the potential economic impact or the money that could have to be sent to the EU as a result of the Brexit deal.  Neither does it take into account the coming collapse of the currency and flight of capital in a no deal scenario.

.

Windtalker.

The current political problems in France have nothing whatever to do with the Uk's membership of the EU. Macron wanted to reduce taxes on the wealthiest people in France to attract investment and relocation to Paris. He increased taxes on fuel and other items to pay for it. Pedro Sánchez does not require EU approval to give expats a vote. Spain is a sovereign nation and as such can pass their own internal laws and make bilateral treaties if it chooses. The only condition is such laws or treaties must not conflict with the EU’s five principles.

Mickeyfinn,

Thats exactly the point of  gross and net in so much as the larger figure quoted never took account of amounts returned. It was referred to as a gross figure in early debate which was conveniently forgotten by the remain camp. Of course it was a mistake and was thankfully re-clarified during live debate prior to the referendum vote,  but to suggest it was not identified and reclarified during the ongoing debate as such is wrong.

As for assessing economic impacts what is the point of using the same modelling methods that are highly questionable going forward? Don’t you appreciate that the most reliable source of modelling now needs to be properly assessed and considered going forward, instead of continually quoting an erroneous method of analysis which conveniently suits a specific political agenda? Why so reticent to consider the uncomfortable truth that this form of analysis is no longer reliable?? Isn’t this in itself a form of intransigence?