Should we have a Second Referendum?

Original post by nutz99

The only option now is how we leave - with or without an agreement with the EU. Any other option, such as remaining, sets a precedent that government could use in the future. Do you really want this or any other government to simply ignore the results of future referendums if they don't like the result, because that's what would happen. There should only ever be one vote, one result!

What if there were a general election now, with the next government elected with the manifesto promise to stay in the EU? Voters have the right to change their mind, new voters become eligible and more detail becomes clear over time.

Reply 42

Original post by Doones

Perhaps, except 50% of the electorate didn't vote to Leave. It was just 37%.

And see this previous referendum for precedent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Scottish_devolution_referendum

That's a ridiculous argument, based on that where do we go in the future?

The turn out for the referendum was high, its been exceptionally low for years. Not casting a vote means the opposite of who won...

Anyway you want another referendum yes, why?

Reply 43

Original post by Burton Bridge

That's a ridiculous argument, based on that where do we go in the future?

The turn out for the referendum was high, its been exceptionally low for years. Not casting a vote means the opposite of who won...

Anyway you want another referendum yes, why?

It's not a ridiculous argument. It's literally what happened in the 1979 Devo Referendum.

It's pretty common for binding votes with major (e.g. constitional) impacts to have voting forumulas with a higher bar than just a straight 50% of votes cast.

And yes I do, I stated why in my reply to you #40:
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=82389560&postcount=40

Reply 44

Original post by RogerOxon

What if there were a general election now, with the next government elected with the manifesto promise to stay in the EU? Voters have the right to change their mind, new voters become eligible and more detail becomes clear over time.

The real issue is neither major party will stand on that promise in a GE. The only way to test that question is a 2nd Ref, unfortunately.

Reply 45

Original post by Doones

The real issue is neither major party will stand on that promise in a GE. The only way to test that question is a 2nd Ref, unfortunately.

Agreed. It was intended as an example where votes at different times could have conflicting results.

Reply 46

Original post by Doones

It's pretty common for binding votes with major (e.g. constitional) impacts to have voting forumulas with a higher bar than just a straight 50% of votes cast.

Agreed - they absolutely should, especially for anything with a multi-year impact or process.

Reply 47

Original post by RogerOxon

Agreed. It was intended as an example where votes at different times could have conflicting results.

Ah!

Reply 48

geoking

18

Original post by Doones

Perhaps, except 50% of the electorate didn't vote to Leave. It was just 37%.

And see this previous referendum for precedent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Scottish_devolution_referendum

It set a 40% of the electorate requirement (not even 50%). On that basis the 2016 referendum would also have failed.

The people who chose not to vote count as having abstained and therefore shouldn't be considered. The majority of voters chose to leave. If parliament does not go ahead with an exit of the eu, democracy in this country is shown to be a lie as the majority of the voting electorate will have been ignored with the will of a privaliged few taking precedent i.e. an aristocracy.

Reply 49

geoking

18

Original post by RogerOxon

Agreed - they absolutely should, especially for anything with a multi-year impact or process.

Please try to come up with a figure that isn't completely arbitrary. 50% is used to determine the majority. How on earth do you intended on determining a "better" majority?

Reply 50

Original post by Doones

It's not a ridiculous argument. It's literally what happened in the 1979 Devo Referendum.

It's pretty common for binding votes with major (e.g. constitional) impacts to have voting forumulas with a higher bar than just a straight 50% of votes cast.

And yes I do, I stated why in my reply to you #40:
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=82389560&postcount=40

Yea I know mate I saw it,

It is a ridiculous argument because you are never going to get 100% turn outs in any voluntary voting situation, nor are you likely to get 70% plus for any one thing. My default I use here always is, 5% think the worlds flat and the moons landings where fake, its the rule of there is always one.

I don't know about the 1979 referendum however in 2016 the government set out a 50% win line with the direct message, David Cameron said, listen for yourself

https://youtu.be/gUsKWsPcRXE

It's disingenuous to suggest that we didn't know what we was voting for. Also it's disingenuous to post

"Perhaps. 50% of the electorate didn't vote to Leave. It was just 37%"

even though it factual those that voted to renain us even less than 37%, so they still lost.

Furthermore why do you want another referendum against what we was clearly promised, when you will never gain the percentage you need mean to make the vote is meaningful by your own terms.

That's why it's ridiculous to judge a result based on a system that was not in place at the time, no matter how much you may of liked it to of been.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 51

Original post by geoking

The people who chose not to vote count as having abstained and therefore shouldn't be considered. The majority of voters chose to leave. If parliament does not go ahead with an exit of the eu, democracy in this country is shown to be a lie as the majority of the voting electorate will have been ignored with the will of a privaliged few taking precedent i.e. an aristocracy.

1979

Reply 52

Original post by Doones

1979

But was this promised before the 1979 vote?

https://youtu.be/gUsKWsPcRXE

And what's the point of wishing for another referendum because all you are doing is proving me correct that referendums don't work and there should never of been one on the first place.

Reply 53

No the message was to leave, that's all the message was as I already posted this video we was under no illusion where the winning line was or what was going to happen if we voted to leave

https://youtu.be/gUsKWsPcRXE

May's deal respects the referendum and then we should hold a general election to deside what type of country we want. If you wish to rejoin vote lib dem, Norway Labour, hard Brexit tory for example if that's the way the parties set out their manifesto

Reply 54

Original post by geoking

Please try to come up with a figure that isn't completely arbitrary. 50% is used to determine the majority. How on earth do you intended on determining a "better" majority?

It isn't for a censure motion - that requires a super-majority. Is that 50% of those eligible to vote, or those that voted? I could call that arbitrary.

The fact is that opinions change, otherwise we'd never have any elections. Any long process needs to take that into account, especially when detail become clear along the way. No one knew what sort of a deal would be negotiated.

Reply 55

nutz99

19

Original post by RogerOxon

What if there were a general election now, with the next government elected with the manifesto promise to stay in the EU? Voters have the right to change their mind, new voters become eligible and more detail becomes clear over time.

Do you seriously think anyone will get elected with that manifesto promise. I don't.

Voters may have the right to change their mind but not their vote. You place your X you make your choice. No going back!

Reply 56

Original post by nutz99

Do you seriously think anyone will get elected with that manifesto promise. I don't.

That wasn't the point.

Voters may have the right to change their mind but not their vote. You place your X you make your choice. No going back!

If you voted Labour 20 years ago, are you ever allowed to change that opinion? You get to change your mind every few years on that.

What about new voters that never got to vote on Brexit? When do they get heard?
What about people that didn't appreciate many of the issues, e.g. the Irish border?

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 57

chocolate_fan

16

I think there should be another vote on Brexit. Brexit doesn't just affect those in the UK. It also affects overseas territories of the Uk. Places like the Falkland Islands or the Cayman Islands rely on the EU for trade. Why couldn't they vote?
And as Jacob Ress-Mogg said we may not be seeing the effects of Brexit for a long time to come, probably 50 years. Why are we letting people who'll be dead way before then vote on something that will affect this country in 50 years, why should they get a say in what happens when they'll be dead?
And lastly, why did we hold a referendum when we didn't even know what to do afterwards? We still don't have a finalised brexit plan, just weeks away from Brexit day. Why? We should have sorted something out with the EU before we voted, or at least got a rough copy. That would certainly have stopped the disinformation campaign led by both parties.

Reply 58