The Student Room Group

Do you want a second referendum on brexit?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Hatter_2
That video's already been shown in this thread, but thanks for giving me the opportunity to show again Andrew Neil's marvellous takedown of its dishonest propaganda.


[video="youtube;Z4Jb-fmFfiU"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4Jb-fmFfiU[/video]



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4Jb-fmFfiU

Amazing how many of these remainiacs claiming to be disgusted at lies don't mind lying themselves, whether clipping half-sentences to make it look like these things were said; insisting a lot of people voted leave because they thought the NHS budget would go up by exactly £350m and wrongly attributing it to Nigel Farage; or lying that the economy would go into recession and start an apocalypse.


Andrew Neil could have found video clips showing a different story, like that video I posted. The true picture is that most remainer said leave wanted to leave the single market (which was mostly true) and Leave said that was nonsence we can be like norway (if you ignore the odd acception) whenever they were talking to audiance that was skeptical about the economic implications of leaving the single market.

The Leave campaign was evidently a load of lies. The NHS lie was criminal coming from a bunch of ****ers that want rid of it if they could. They can weather an economic downterm and don;t need to rely on the NHS if they get ill. I on the other hand need those things. Bunch of c*nts.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by paul514
The responding video was from hatter not me


Why did you just ignore Captain Haddock? Paul, if you're going to start, at least have the decency to admit you're wrong.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Andrew Neil could have found video clips showing a different story. The true picture is that most remainer said leave wanted to leave the single market (which was mostly true) and Leave said that was nocence we can be like norway (if you ignore the odd acception).

The Leave campaign was evidently a load of lies. The NHS lie was criminal coming from a bunch of ****ers that want rid of it if they could. They can weather an economic downterm and don;t need to rely on the NHS if they get ill. I on the other hand need those things. Bunch of c*nts.


So when Neil said that no examples except hannan could be found after royal assent he was lying.....

Ok 😂
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
The Leave campaign was evidently a load of lies. The NHS lie was criminal coming from a bunch of ****ers that want rid of it if they could. They can weather an economic downterm and don;t need to rely on the NHS if they get ill. I on the other hand need those things. Bunch of c*nts.


The only thing that would have got rid of the NHS is TTIP, secretly negotiated. You're deluded mate, Vote Leave was mostly Conservative MPs, who as the government was and are spending record amounts on the NHS. Hardly destroying it.
I reckon there should at least be a referendum on the deal if nothing else.

The outcome of Brexit will affect this country for decades to come so it’s only fair that the people decide what that outcome is.
Original post by jobbaaa
Why did you just ignore Captain Haddock? Paul, if you're going to start, at least have the decency to admit you're wrong.


I didn’t I replied to him and he completely ignored what was sent, everyone on this thread has ignored that Andrew Neil video.
Original post by Hatter_2
Precisely what I did say.


The problem with that is the SM stance does not come close to a comprehensive vision for Brexit. A comprehensive vision is something the public did not see: a) from leave campaigners and b) the Government. Also, the ballot had 'Leave' written on, an ambiguity as that could mean many different things.

The public voted to leave, yes. But what it means is such an open question that without a second referendum it almost becomes meaningless. The public could vote with the nature of Brexit clear; after negotiations.
No, we shouldn't have a 2nd ref. The people spoke, if it was the other way round Brexiteers wouldn't be behaving as remoaners have and be throwing their toys out the pram.
Original post by Anna1029
People are forgetting that Brexit is happening because the majority of people wanted it to happen and voted accordingly... It’s like Trump’s victory - people should just accept that that’s what most people want:smile:


Good advice...

But the vote was very instinctive and not very cautious. why did people vote because they were told lies that we could spend £350 million on the NHS from the money that we “give to the EU”? We already know that the UK never was giving £350 million to the EU, as we had a special rebate. And of course a lot of that money came back to us to renovate towns in Wales, to pay for scientific research and to help our farmers amongst other things. Now all of these are fighting to keep the money they used to get, so there is very little chance any extra money will ever reach the NHS.

Honestly, i agree that the people’s choice is final, but people should be more careful when making decisions about these important subjects. The end result was just embarrassing.
Original post by AmberTheApple
No, we shouldn't have a 2nd ref. The people spoke, if it was the other way round Brexiteers wouldn't be behaving as remoaners have and be throwing their toys out the pram.

False equivalence. If we voted to remain, at least we'd know exactly what we're getting.
Original post by jobbaaa
False equivalence. If we voted to remain, at least we'd know exactly what we're getting.


Well you wouldn’t as the rules continually change with each treaty.
Original post by Napp
It still doesnt negate the fact that more people did not vote to leave the EU.


And even more people did not vote to remain in the EU so it's a moot point.

Original post by Napp
At any rate I maintain that, like most other countries, such a decision should only go ahead with a super-majority. A 4% difference is overly flimsy for such a profound change. Especially as both campaigns lied through their teeth.


If a decision requires a super-majority then surely that means a decision either way needs a super-majority? So what happens if we never get one? What then? Keep having referendums for all eternity?
Original post by Conceited
The problem with that is the SM stance does not come close to a comprehensive vision for Brexit. A comprehensive vision is something the public did not see: a) from leave campaigners and b) the Government. Also, the ballot had 'Leave' written on, an ambiguity as that could mean many different things.

The public voted to leave, yes. But what it means is such an open question that without a second referendum it almost becomes meaningless. The public could vote with the nature of Brexit clear; after negotiations.


It's perfectly simple, take back control of everything we have ceded to the EU, offer maximum cooperation in security and trade to the Eurocrats. That's brexit, what we decide to do afterwards is down to democracy.
Reply 213
Avatar for Napp
Napp
22
Original post by howitoughttobe
And even more people did not vote to remain in the EU so it's a moot point.

No it really isnt. You lot seem to be having trouble understanding this simple fact - more people did not to leave the EU than did equally, as you said, more did not vote to stay in it than did.



If a decision requires a super-majority then surely that means a decision either way needs a super-majority? So what happens if we never get one? What then? Keep having referendums for all eternity?

Not really, the status quo would carry in any such situation.
No, I take the view that referendums are a tool for dictators to be honest with you.
To be honest you're, I assume, an arch brexiteer so we can never see eye to eye on this.
I am personally pro-remain so that definitely makes me biased in wanting a second referendum as I hope the outcome will be different! One of the main reasons I want one though is I think the first referendum was almost entirely fear-mongering and not enough actually being educated on what we are voting for
Original post by rinofthemill
I am personally pro-remain so that definitely makes me biased in wanting a second referendum as I hope the outcome will be different! One of the main reasons I want one though is I think the first referendum was almost entirely fear-mongering and not enough actually being educated on what we are voting for


If there were truly a massive backlash against Brexit the Tories would not still be on 40% and the Lib Dems would be surging. The truth is that it is somewhat of a secondary issue, indeed focusing on other issues was one of the reasons Labour did so well according to the British election study.
Original post by Napp
No, I take the view that referendums are a tool for dictators to be honest with you.


No, fairly giving choices to the electorate is democracy, dictatorship is a small group of people making decisions themselves.
I'm conflicted.

It's important to to respect the result, but there was also a fair bit of dishonesty from both sides during the first campaign.

The 2016 campaign was one of the most toxic and divisive in British political history, but Brexit also risks severe damage to the UK economy.
Considering the current Government are basically going to bend over and we'll have a terrible deal, it would make sense to have a vote with all the facts to hand (even the real ones).
Original post by jobbaaa
False equivalence. If we voted to remain, at least we'd know exactly what we're getting.


Exactly. Who on earth in their right mind would CHOOSE to stay in the EU knowing what it is as an institution.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you