The Student Room Group

Bexit supporters would you support cancelling Brexit?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Avatar for thoxque
thoxque
8
If we have a second referendum why would people bother even voting? Why should they cast their opinion into a vote in which they know will not be acted upon. Whats there then to stop being a third and fourth referendum.. Where does this end?!
In my opinion we should deal with this situation one step at a time, not by going back a step to see if there's a better path (because like it or not the people have already chose their path). Of course there may be a better path available, but why risk going backwards in a time where we are struggling to go fowards? This will only cause more chaos and confusion among the British public and make voters lose faith in the democratic system.

We have a "flawed democracy" on our hands right now because we have a Remainer PM, not because we need to be influenced by Eurocrats in Brussels, even Cameron stepped down because he knew as a Remainer he wouldnt be able to deliver Brexit. The Government was supposed to be the one leading the charge, and the PM at the front of the charge doesnt even know where the charge is going. Couple this with the likes of Corbyn straight up turning down every deal (good or not) May put forth and offering no alternatives except to scrap the whole thing has wreaked havoc.
Original post by Dez
Ah, the classic whataboutery argument. We should ignore this one instance of democratic corruption because there are other instances of corruption that also get ignored. I don't disagree with you that there have been other dodgy doings in our farce of a democracy.


You are you one playing the the classic whataboutery argument. Brexit is more legitimate there is a clear mandate for it backed up in the general election of 2017 and currently the huge surge in popularity of a party that has no manifesto... I'd say Brexit is fairly legit


Original post by Dez

Even more reason why the result should be considered void and a re-run demanded.

We would never have any election of any type that would stand if we did that.
Original post by Dez
More whataboutery. Christ almighty can we stay on topic? Yes, Labour are just as frigging corrupt as the rest of them. I don't vote Labour.

So in you're head, it's OK for you to play whataboutery, as you put it but nobody can challenge you, point out the gapping flaws in you're arugement?
Original post by BlueIndigoViolet
Cameron should have never held that blasted referendum, pandering to the loony right of his party.

The looney right are the problem, it's the looney right that took us in Europe in the first place! It's done wonders for social inequality but not much for anything else.
Why would any leaver take a second referendum legitimately or seriously.

Why would they believe that this result would be accepted and carried out if the leave vote from 2016 wasn't, especailly if the ballot paper is remian and Mays deal (2 defeated options).

If remain does win this hypothetical referendum why would any leave supporter accept the result?
Reply 25
Avatar for Dez
Dez
20
Original post by Burton Bridge
You are you one playing the the classic whataboutery argument.


You're not even making any sense now. How is anything I've put in this thread whataboutery? You're the one trying to derail the conversation by bringing up non-Brexit related arguments.

Original post by Burton Bridge
Brexit is more legitimate there is a clear mandate for it backed up in the general election of 2017 and currently the huge surge in popularity of a party that has no manifesto... I'd say Brexit is fairly legit


Rubbish. The 2017 vote didn't prove anything, and the Brexit party have not won any elections at all yet. Neither of those things can be considered a mandate for Brexit, not by a long shot.
Original post by thoxque
If we have a second referendum why would people bother even voting? Why should they cast their opinion into a vote in which they know will not be acted upon. Whats there then to stop being a third and fourth referendum.. Where does this end?!
In my opinion we should deal with this situation one step at a time, not by going back a step to see if there's a better path (because like it or not the people have already chose their path). Of course there may be a better path available, but why risk going backwards in a time where we are struggling to go fowards? This will only cause more chaos and confusion among the British public and make voters lose faith in the democratic system.

We have a "flawed democracy" on our hands right now because we have a Remainer PM, not because we need to be influenced by Eurocrats in Brussels, even Cameron stepped down because he knew as a Remainer he wouldnt be able to deliver Brexit. The Government was supposed to be the one leading the charge, and the PM at the front of the charge doesnt even know where the charge is going. Couple this with the likes of Corbyn straight up turning down every deal (good or not) May put forth and offering no alternatives except to scrap the whole thing has wreaked havoc.

The same reason people keep voting in general elections. The same reason MPs kept voting when Theresa May held multiple meaningful votes. One advisory referendum does not equal decision completely final on an issue. Democracy is an ongoing conversation. Not hard to understand. I don't know why people refuse to acknowledge that this is the quintessential nature of democracy.

Also, any second referendum would not be the same as the first. It would be to break the political impasse. So there would be options to leave. If you do an alternative vote, where people list their options in order of preference, then people would decide on a way of leaving. It would most likely not end up in remain or no deal, or May's deal, but probably a Norway style exit. That would be quite sensible (and something Brexiteers often advocated before Brexit (including the xenophobia inducing Farage). Lord knows why Brexiteers now prefer a "no deal", which is literally forecasted to be economically disastrous. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face).

Theresa May clearly wants to leave the EU. It’s an odd argument to blame her for us not leaving because she voted to remain in the referendum. Moreover, Corbyn and Labour supported leaving with a customs union or a single market deal in indicative votes. They didn't vote against every deal. Corbyn clearly wants to leave the EU, and has voted in favour of reasonably sensible proposals. Why would you want him to vote for all, good or bad? That's as ridiculous as the statement that we should just plough on instead of finding the best path.

The only people who have voted against any deal to leave the EU are the staunch Brexiteer MPs. Quite ironic.
Reply 27
Avatar for thoxque
thoxque
8
Yes, I agree with you, but my point is that you are trying to push having a complete referendum all over again (getting us completely nowhere) and meaning everything we did in the last 2 years was for nothing. Democracy is about having a conversation yes, but when we come to a decision we should stick to it, and have conversations on how we are going to deliver the winning decision so that we can progress. Otherwise we are going to be stuck doing referendums till the cows come home, it will get us nowhere!


Original post by Bashtopher
The same reason people keep voting in general elections. The same reason MPs kept voting when Theresa May held multiple meaningful votes. One advisory referendum does not equal decision completely final on an issue. Democracy is an ongoing conversation. Not hard to understand. I don't know why people refuse to acknowledge that this is the quintessential nature of democracy.

Also, any second referendum would not be the same as the first. It would be to break the political impasse. So there would be options to leave. If you do an alternative vote, where people list their options in order of preference, then people would decide on a way of leaving. It would most likely not end up in remain or no deal, or May's deal, but probably a Norway style exit. That would be quite sensible (and something Brexiteers often advocated before Brexit (including the xenophobia inducing Farage). Lord knows why Brexiteers now prefer a "no deal", which is literally forecasted to be economically disastrous. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face).

Theresa May clearly wants to leave the EU. It’s an odd argument to blame her for us not leaving because she voted to remain in the referendum. Moreover, Corbyn and Labour supported leaving with a customs union or a single market deal in indicative votes. They didn't vote against every deal. Corbyn clearly wants to leave the EU, and has voted in favour of reasonably sensible proposals. Why would you want him to vote for all, good or bad? That's as ridiculous as the statement that we should just plough on instead of finding the best path.

The only people who have voted against any deal to leave the EU are the staunch Brexiteer MPs. Quite ironic.
Original post by Dez
More whataboutery. Christ almighty can we stay on topic? Yes, Labour are just as frigging corrupt as the rest of them. I don't vote Labour.


Not whataboutery though is it, it's just what's happened since we started having elections.
To deny the outcome of the referendum on some spurious notion that anything would have been different had leave not done this, or remain had not done that would be a catastrophic error by any governing body stupid enough to do it.
In fact the mere fact that 3 years on and not a thing has speaks volumes, because it's not for the lack of trying by some in the background.
Original post by thoxque
Yes, I agree with you, but my point is that you are trying to push having a complete referendum all over again (getting us completely nowhere) and meaning everything we did in the last 2 years was for nothing. Democracy is about having a conversation yes, but when we come to a decision we should stick to it, and have conversations on how we are going to deliver the winning decision so that we can progress. Otherwise we are going to be stuck doing referendums till the cows come home, it will get us nowhere!

What I'm suggesting is to have a referendum to decide the way forward now that we know the credible options. There are 5 of these: May's deal, no deal, customs unions, EFTA/Single Market and remain.

In other words, I think the UK should have a second referendum, but it should not ask the same question. Instead, it should ask how we ought to proceed now we know a little more of the potential options. I would propose an ‘Alternative Vote’ style referendum, whereby the public is asked how we should proceed, with options including:

1. May's deal
2. No deal
3. Single Market (Efta)
4. Customs Union
5. Remain.

There is only one vote, and people would rank their preferences from 1-5 (I.e. 1 for their favourite and 5 for their least). The eliminations are worked on people's preferences. If any option receives 50%+ of the vote, then that's the way we proceed. If it doesn't, the lowest ranking option is eliminated and the people who voted for it have their second preferences redistributed. If no majority is found again, then the same process applies with the remaining options (and so on until an option reaches 50%+).

This method does not ignore the result of the previous referendum, but builds upon it in light of what we now know. It’s also not a rehash. People would complain about remain being there, but I have a list of reasons why it should be there which I think would be hard to argue with (other than it being the best option).

It might appear difficult to explain the difference between options, but it shouldn’t be. No deal, May's deal and remain have had a lot of coverage. With regards to the other two, there are other countries that have a customs union with the EU without being a member (Turkey is aforementioned, Andorra and San Marino are two others). Moreover, there are British territories that are not members to the EU but are part of a customs union (Jersey and Guernsey spring to mind).

Similarly, there are countries in the single market that aren't in the EU. Norway's is always the model example, but there's also Liechtenstein, Iceland and Switzerland (although the Swiss arrangement is meant to be quite complicated, so maybe not best to use them). There are in an organisation called EFTA – something the UK co-founded and were a part of before joining the EU in the 70s.

The one issue is education and campaigning. Quite radically, I don’t think there should be campaigns here, but rather a number of equally funded think tanks providing forecasts and fact checks. These should be compared to the those forecasts already produced by the treasury. So instead of hyperbole, we have a debate of facts and figures. Naturally, Farage types will still campaign with populist rhetoric. However, we could restrict the televised debates to representatives of the think tanks, as well as a representative of the government. Tbh, I'm sure there's a wealth or arguments against this, and it's just an idea. Normal campaigning can also work alongside the Alternative Vote referendum I propose.

I do think the government should release a neutral summary leaflet of all options, but that might be idealistic.

I also think in a leaflet or think tank debate, the status of all other EU law should be mentioned. Most people don’t know what EU law stands if we leave, other than that relating to single market etc. EU law will generally be incorporated into UK law after Brexit, (see sections 2 - 7 on the EU Withdrawal Act 2018). There are of course exceptions (such as those that require EU cooperation, e.g. customs union, single market and European Arrest Warrant. Or those that require EU membership e.g. EU election process, ECJ referrals etc) but most EU law will be kept, just under a British name. But altogether, not much changes legally speaking other than that EU law is no longer supreme and courts are no longer bound by the ECJ (nor can they refer cases to the ECJ).

So basically, the single market and customs union will be added to what has already been decided by British law, the same as May's deal and no deal. Remain obviously speaks for itself, and the EU Withdrawal Act would be repealed.

Overall, as aforementioned, this method does not ignore the result of the previous referendum, but builds upon it in light of what we now know. Even if you favourite options is last, your next preference would probably count. Would probably lead to soft brexit if remain doesn't win outright. Thus, it also allows for a democratic means of compromise between leave and remain, which is something sorely needed with regards to this very divisive issue.

I hope it's clearer that this method would not lead to further referendums, and would be decisive in the way forward. To completely safeguard against further referendums on the matter, we can make the decision legally binding, as opposed to being advisory like the last one. The style of referendum, in addition to making it legally binding, would completely avoid your fear of perpetual referendums.
Original post by Bashtopher
It's funny that people go on about democracy on two counts. Firstly, a second referendum doesn't destroy democracy. Democracy isn't settled by one vote, and it doesn't occur on one day. If there is a second referendum and people vote to remain, that is the new democratic will of the people. It's the same as having a general election every 5 years (or often sooner than 5 years). The argument that a second referendum is anti-democratic is nonsense upon stilts.

Secondly, the EU is more democratic than the UK (I feel I can prove this assertion using facts). It's funny that one of the reasons people wanted to leave the EU was because it was anti-democratic and now the same people are saying that our own country is anti-democratic. I personally would argue that since the EU is more democratic than the UK, and if people are so concerned with democracy, surely we should stay in a system that is more democratic than our own, in the hope of it influencing our seemingly flawed democracy.

N.b. I don't believe our democracy is flawed because politicians are failing to deliver Brexit, or because there is a small potential of a second referendum occurring. I think the flaws in our democracy relate to proportionality and how laws are made.


Blah blah blah

It’s anti democratic to have a second vote before you enact the original democratic vote or you have ignored the demos (people)
Original post by paul514
Blah blah blah

It’s anti democratic to have a second vote before you enact the original democratic vote or you have ignored the demos (people)

It seems that your knowledge of democracy is as mature as your responses to people's opinions.

Anyhow, I'm not suggesting a second referendum asking the same question. Not ignoring the first one (which was advisory, btw). Im talking about asking the people asking a new question (how move forward) as a means of solving the political impasse. If you think that asking the people a different question on the same issue in light of new circumstances is anti-democratic, then there's little hope for you to understand what democracy actually is.
Original post by paul514
Blah blah blah

It’s anti democratic to have a second vote before you enact the original democratic vote or you have ignored the demos (people)

It is anti democratic to hold a vote and then attempt to deliver something which contradicts the promises and claims which were originally made in favour of that vote.


Furthermore, the result of the a vote is democratically invalid when it is based upon significant false information, since a prerequisite for democracy is that of informed consent, but consent is not valid when it's granted on the basis of lies, deceit, deliberate misinformation and half-truths.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by Bashtopher
It seems that your knowledge of democracy is as mature as your responses to people's opinions.

Anyhow, I'm not suggesting a second referendum asking the same question. Not ignoring the first one (which was advisory, btw). Im talking about asking the people asking a new question (how move forward) as a means of solving the political impasse. If you think that asking the people a different question on the same issue in light of new circumstances is anti-democratic, then there's little hope for you to understand what democracy actually is.

I would be all for taking no deal off the ballot sheet, so long as remain is too, that would be a fair compromise how many of you remainers would agree with that?
That options could read -
1. May's deal
2. FTA ( Canada plus stylee)
No need for the CU option because that's covered by May's deal.
This would uphold the result of the referendum and remove the chance of anyone's worst case scenario
Original post by ColinDent
I would be all for taking no deal off the ballot sheet, so long as remain is too, that would be a fair compromise how many of you remainers would agree with that?
That options could read -
1. May's deal
2. FTA ( Canada plus stylee)
No need for the CU option because that's covered by May's deal.
This would uphold the result of the referendum and remove the chance of anyone's worst case scenario


As someone who voted to remain, and think we are stupid to leave the EU, I could live with that. However, if we are all so concerned about democracy, it would be odd to leave the two most popular options off the table (that is, remain and no deal). I think the Alternative Vote would deliver Brexit and lead to greater satisfaction overall, but I totally accept your proposal as one with large merit.

Nevertheless, May's customs arrangement isn't the same as being part of the EU's customs union. I'd argue to keep that as an alternative option in the referendum you propose.
Original post by ColinDent
I would be all for taking no deal off the ballot sheet, so long as remain is too, that would be a fair compromise how many of you remainers would agree with that?
That options could read -
1. May's deal
2. FTA ( Canada plus stylee)
No need for the CU option because that's covered by May's deal.
This would uphold the result of the referendum and remove the chance of anyone's worst case scenario


Wait, you also have to include Norway style brexit. I'd only accept your proposal if the Norway option is there too.
Original post by Bashtopher
Wait, you also have to include Norway style brexit. I'd only accept your proposal if the Norway option is there too.

Pmsl who wants that? Seriously?
Original post by Burton Bridge
Pmsl who wants that? Seriously?

A lot of remainers would vote for it, some brexiteers. Joining EFTA is my number one choice after remain.

It should at least be an option in a referendum, since it is completely credible alternative.
Original post by Bashtopher
A lot of remainers would vote for it, some brexiteers. Joining EFTA is my number one choice after remain.

It should at least be an option in a referendum, since it is completely credible alternative.

We had may as well remain a full member than that, that's absolutely stupid.
Original post by Burton Bridge
We had may as well remain a full member than that, that's absolutely stupid.


All options other than remain are stupid, but here we are. This allows us to leave the EU and retain the benefits of the single market. Best of a bad bunch of leave options. Closest to remain.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you