CWU reaffirm opposition to second referendum

[Celgar]

It is odd how MPs are unwilling to accept the majority vote on a high turnout on the referendum to leave the EU.
Compare that to the most recent by-election which had only a 36% turnout. The Labour MP that won that seat did so on a miniscule percentage of the vote yet that was accepted without any query.
The election boundaries in Scotland were revealed to be broken at the last general election where 4% of the populations votes resulted in an unrepresentative amount of MPs being elected. It took the massive switch from Labour to the SNP for this to become visible.

[scoobymunster]

It is odd how MPs are unwilling to accept the majority vote on a high turnout on the referendum to leave the EU.
Compare that to the most recent by-election which had only a 36% turnout. The Labour MP that won that seat did so on a miniscule percentage of the vote yet that was accepted without any query.
The election boundaries in Scotland were revealed to be broken at the last general election where 4% of the populations votes resulted in an unrepresentative amount of MPs being elected. It took the massive switch from Labour to the SNP for this to become visible.

The problem though is that the referendum question was too vague, MPs have failed three times to agree just what leaving the EU actually means. Aside from another referendum, how exactly do we "agree" what our future relationship with Europe should be?

[Woody Guthrie]

It is odd how MPs are unwilling to accept the majority vote on a high turnout on the referendum to leave the EU.

Which MPs are unwilling to accept the referendum result?
I don't think that question has been asked in parliament.
What they can't agree on is HOW we leave the EU not IF we leave and I'm afraid that's what happens when you have a binary choice and leave all the thinking and planning until after.
Even in the unlikely scenario of another referendum the first decision would only be put aside if the people wanted it not the politicians.

[SpacePhoenix]

Even though the deadline is now Halloween for the agreement to be passed, there's the MPs summer recess and the conference season to come out of that time. MPs have rejected the idea of a 2nd referendum already

[postslippete]

Even though the deadline is now Halloween for the agreement to be passed, there's the MPs summer recess and the conference season to come out of that time. MPs have rejected the idea of a 2nd referendum already

People seem to believe their own facts irrespective of whether you voted to leave the EU or whether they are still a bitter re-moaner. The one fact remains abundantly clear: we have voted to leave. Theres no going back as voting again is just going to create more chaos and confusion. The government and MPs have betrayed Brexit probably because they have their own ideas and agendas instead of getting behind the majority decision.

[baldrick]

Please, no putdowns or accusations in this thread - keep it civil. Let us be different for once.

It would be good to avoid the putdowns and insults like 'remoaner', and stick to the arguments.
The fact is that Parliament has voted against a second referendum. Parliament has also voted against a 'No Deal' Brexit - only about 120 MPs voted for that. How this gets resolved I don't know.
Even if there were a second referendum the result would possibly be another small majority one way or the other, so the dilemma would continue.
Perhaps the EU will eventually get fed up with the UK's inability to resolve this and will impose a 'No Deal' Brexit. That seems to be what the ERG hard Brexiters are hoping for.

[Woody Guthrie]

The interesting part about this whole farce is that no one is likely to get what they wanted and the resultant bodge is probably going to be what the fewest people in the country would actually vote for if given a comprehensive choice at the start.That's why leavers fear a confirmatory vote...because many leavers don't want to leave this way.

This has always been the reality of politics and why a referendum without a clear plan already in place was the dumbest version of democracy available. It isn't the will of the people because the people don't know what they were willing for. There were too many ways to leave the EU with far different potential outcomes for the UK to leave it to a simple binary IN/OUT choice.

[Tman]

It isn't the will of the people because the people don't know what they were willing for..

That tired old chestnut again...

[Woody Guthrie]

It isn't the will of the people because the people don't know what they were willing for..

That tired old chestnut again...

Iit's still the truth and unless you can put forward a reasonable argument that it isn't calling it a tired old chestnut is just making noises like a child blowing raspberries.

Nobody even now 3 years later knows what terms we'll leave under or how that will impact on us all, it's impossible to claim that this is anyone's will. It's ridiculous to claim that any singular type of leaving from no deal to a customs union is the will of the people until you ask that particular question.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

whether they are still a bitter re-moaner.

And that will happen because many pro-remoaners

Please, no putdowns or accusations in this thread - keep it civil. Let us be different for once.

Remainers is more polite and isn't taken as a put down generally.

[Tman]

Iit's still the truth and unless you can put forward a reasonable argument that it isn't calling it a tired old chestnut is just making noises like a child blowing raspberries.
Nobody even now 3 years later knows what terms we'll leave under or how that will impact on us all, it's impossible to claim that this is anyone's will. It's ridiculous to claim that any singular type of leaving from no deal to a customs union is the will of the people until you ask that particular question.

It was a simple binary question "In or out" and although people like yourself criticise it now by saying that "people didn't know...." patronising cliché, that was what was on the paper at that time and the choice was on that premise. To attempt to question or nullify the result by, again, that tired old cliché, is just lame.
I think a second referendum would be a sensible way to move forward, as long as the options were a) something like May's deal 2) some other deal hammered out by the Tories and Labour, or 3) some other option yet to be decided between now and October.
There should be no option to cancel or rescind Article 50 as that been done and voted on, and although Remainers want to see some sort of rerun, it's
undemocratic to vote on issues on which the majority have already made their choice merely in the hope that the outcome might be different.

[Woody Guthrie]

it's undemocratic to vote on issues on which the majority have already made their choice merely in the hope that the outcome might be different.

Isn't that what we do every 5 years?
You can't draw a line under any democratic decision just because it suits one position or another, that's why referenda are such a poor version of democracy. They freeze government and opposition alike and lock them into a position that may or may not have been a good idea 3 years ago under certain circumstances but might well be ridiculous if those circumstances are no longer possible.

That's why we're in this mess because no one can provide a Brexit that satisfies the multitude of different Brexits that the 17 million who voted to leave actually imagined.

I don't want another binary referendum, it will resolve nothing, what I want from our leaders is a level of honesty that's probably unlikely. I want them to stand up and take a genuine party position on Brexit, tell those in the party to follow the line or f**k off and call a general election.

Then the people can speak....

[Tman]

"Woody Guthrie"]

Isn't that what we do every 5 years?

No it isn't, and I'm sure you appreciate the fundamental difference.

I don't want another binary referendum, it will resolve nothing, what I want from our leaders is a level of honesty that's probably unlikely. I want them to stand up and take a genuine party position on Brexit, tell those in the party to follow the line or f**k off and call a general election.

A genuine party position would be useful, but the useless Tories are split down the middle on this issue and have been for decades, and the weasel Corbyn swings whichever way would suit his ministerial ambitions, so no hope there either. Would anyone really vote for hopeless Cable and lib-Dems and risk those non-entities getting into Number Ten?
Calling for a second referendum or a GE isn't the solution to this as the result could be much the same, so what then, the best of three? Last man standing?
If anyone thinks that if another referendum was held and the Remain were in the majority, then all would then be peace and harmony in the UK they would taking naivety to a new level.

Then the people can speak....

The "people" already have, and their wishes haven't been enacted..

[baldrick]

It was a simple binary question "In or out" and although people like yourself criticise it now by saying that "people didn't know...." patronising cliché, that was what was on the paper at that time and the choice was on that premise. To attempt to question or nullify the result by, again, that tired old cliché, is just lame.
I think a second referendum would be a sensible way to move forward, as long as the options were a) something like May's deal 2) some other deal hammered out by the Tories and Labour, or 3) some other option yet to be decided between now and October.
There should be no option to cancel or rescind Article 50 as that been done and voted on, and although Remainers want to see some sort of rerun, it's
undemocratic to vote on issues on which the majority have already made their choice merely in the hope that the outcome might be different.

How can it be 'undemocratic' to allow people to have a democratic vote?

Before the 2016 referendum Farage said "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign wins two-thirds to one third that ends it".

In 2011 Jacob Rees-Mogg tweeted "We could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the negotiation is complete".

in 2012 David Davis said "If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy".

I don't think there should be a referendum to reverse Brexit, but to determine the terms on which we leave the EU, which the pro-Brexit campaigners told us would be easy to negotiate.
It should include the option of remaining in the European Customs Union, and a 'No Deal' Brexit.

[Woody Guthrie]

No it isn't, and I'm sure you appreciate the fundamental difference.

Nope.
Enlighten me.
We had an election in 2015.
The majority of MPs didn't like the result much.
We had another only 2 years later.
Democracy didn't collapse even though the will of the people was ignored.

The will of the people is only a snapshot of opinion at a particular time and doesn't necessarily reflect the will of the people 6 days later, 6 months later or 6 years later. That's why it's pointless having a second referendum but it's also why the first one is equally flaccid when used as a stick to beat opposition with. It's meaningless sloganism if there's such a word and if not I copyright it.