Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[GTG_03]

A second EU referendum is politically more feasible, more winnable and, arguably, more justifiable.
I'm not against a second Indy ref and think it can be justified on the stance of the last Scottish Parliament election results, but think winning that argument in the wider arena may be more difficult.
 

A second EU referendum is not justifiable. Just because some aren't happy with what's looking like a no deal scenario(including me) it doesn't mean we can rerun the referendum.
I'm gutted that we're leaving the EU and wish we had voted remain but we didn't. The English population carried the weight again due to numbers and voted to give the government a blank cheque.
There was no plan for leaving and the British population didn't care, whatever happened they wanted out. That must be respected.
A 2nd Indy ref is justified due to broken promises and the SNP manifesto but I agree I'm not sure which way it'll go. If we vote no again we'll set the country back years.

[welshbairn]

Why should people not be allowed to change their mind on a referendum when the facts become clear? We can change our minds on the Government every few years. 

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

16 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Why should people not be allowed to change their mind on a referendum when the facts become clear? We can change our minds on the Government every few years. 

Strangely enough the very people that bang on about 'democracy' and 'the people have spoken' are the exact same people that are dead against having another vote when the facts are known.

[Granny Danger]

1 hour ago, GTG_03 said:

 

A second EU referendum is not justifiable. Just because some aren't happy with what's looking like a no deal scenario(including me) it doesn't mean we can rerun the referendum.
I'm gutted that we're leaving the EU and wish we had voted remain but we didn't. The English population carried the weight again due to numbers and voted to give the government a blank cheque.
There was no plan for leaving and the British population didn't care, whatever happened they wanted out. That must be respected.
A 2nd Indy ref is justified due to broken promises and the SNP manifesto but I agree I'm not sure which way it'll go. If we vote no again we'll set the country back years.

 

An independent Scotland is a far greater priority for me as it would mean remaining in the EU anyway.  However the Independece Referendum was very clear cut; people knew exactly what they were voting for and what they would get.  Sure we can go on about the lies but it's naivety for folk to believe such lies.

The reason why I think a second EU Referendum is more justifiable is that the issues are far, far less clear.  Had there been the slightest notion of what the result would be then Cameron would, at least, offered multiple options from leaving the Single Market to outright withdrawal.  I think that may have focussed the debate a bit more.

It is clear that withdrawal is going to be devestating.  Someone standing on the edge of a cliff preparing to commit suicide would not be criticised for reconsidering their position.  This "abiding by the will of the people argument" will look pretty lame if and when the full impact hits, and as usual it will be the most disadvantaged in our society who will end up paying the biggest cost when the economy tanks.

 

[Forest_Fifer]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/15/grow-brexit-chris-grayling-suggests-uk-farmers-could-boost-food/

Aye, and who exactly is going to pick all the additional fruit and vegetables that UK farmers will be growing?

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

6 minutes ago, Forest_Fifer said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/15/grow-brexit-chris-grayling-suggests-uk-farmers-could-boost-food/

Aye, and who exactly is going to pick all the additional fruit and vegetables that UK farmers will be growing?

Offer footballer's wages. Problem solved. 

[Fullerene]

First referendum:
Do you want to remain in the EU or Leave?
The UK answer was leave 52% to 48%

So plans are made to leave.

Once those plans are finalized, the UK population are told:
"Right this is the offer if we choose to leave.  Do you still want to leave?"  Yes or No.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Especially if it looks like we might not be getting an extra £350 millions a week towards the NHS.

I think the Brexiteers are frightened that 2016 was a fluke and the UK population will not make the same mistake twice.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Fullerene

[Granny Danger]

23 minutes ago, Fullerene said:

First referendum:
Do you want to remain in the EU or Leave?
The UK answer was leave 52% to 48%

So plans are made to leave.

Once those plans are finalized, the UK population are told:
"Right this is the offer if we choose to leave.  Do you still want to leave?"  Yes or No.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Especially if it looks like we might not be getting an extra £350 millions a week towards the NHS.

I think the Brexiteers are frightened that 2016 was a fluke and the UK population will not make the same mistake twice.

The Brexiteers are split into two groups (OK I know this is a simplification but I'm going with it).

1.  Politicians and others with vested interests who are wealthy enough that they're not concerned and/or have already planned on how to financially benefit from it.

2.  People who will be detrimentally impacted but are too stupid to realise or care.  Many of them are of an age that they won't need to worry too much.

[GTG_03]

An independent Scotland is a far greater priority for me as it would mean remaining in the EU anyway.  However the Independece Referendum was very clear cut; people knew exactly what they were voting for and what they would get.  Sure we can go on about the lies but it's naivety for folk to believe such lies.
The reason why I think a second EU Referendum is more justifiable is that the issues are far, far less clear.  Had there been the slightest notion of what the result would be then Cameron would, at least, offered multiple options from leaving the Single Market to outright withdrawal.  I think that may have focussed the debate a bit more.
It is clear that withdrawal is going to be devestating.  Someone standing on the edge of a cliff preparing to commit suicide would not be criticised for reconsidering their position.  This "abiding by the will of the people argument" will look pretty lame if and when the full impact hits, and as usual it will be the most disadvantaged in our society who will end up paying the biggest cost when the economy tanks.
 

An Indy Scotland is of greater importance to me also. If it was naive of folk to believe the lies in the Indy ref then wouldn't they also be naive to believe the brexiteers lies? Yet they voted leave any way.

Unfortunately even when we see what damage the exit will do there won't be a huge swing to yes. I fear there are more 'union at any cost' types and racists in Scotland than I thought.

[NotThePars]

I think there should be a referendum before a deal is ratified. The only problem is I don't see how that can happen when the Tories are openly referring to the EU as enemies and treating it like a battle. A referendum on exit terms would be weaponised by the EU. Maybe the Tories exiting government and letting Labour negotiate on less hostile terms would allow this to happen.

[Crùbag]

7 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

A second EU referendum is politically more feasible, more winnable and, arguably, more justifiable.

I'm not against a second Indy ref and think it can be justified on the stance of the last Scottish Parliament election results, but think winning that argument in the wider arena may be more difficult.

 

It may be though IIRC, no-one other than the LibDems are calling for one. Corbyn is more or less on board with the Tories.

If a 2nd Brexit ref is fine then surely a second Indyref is fine too. The main beef for me, other than the madness of Brexit, is that without Indy we'll always be at the whim of English voters.

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

An independent Scotland is a far greater priority for me as it would mean remaining in the EU anyway.  However the Independece Referendum was very clear cut; people knew exactly what they were voting for and what they would get.  Sure we can go on about the lies but it's naivety for folk to believe such lies.

The reason why I think a second EU Referendum is more justifiable is that the issues are far, far less clear.  Had there been the slightest notion of what the result would be then Cameron would, at least, offered multiple options from leaving the Single Market to outright withdrawal.  I think that may have focussed the debate a bit more.

It is clear that withdrawal is going to be devestating.  Someone standing on the edge of a cliff preparing to commit suicide would not be criticised for reconsidering their position.  This "abiding by the will of the people argument" will look pretty lame if and when the full impact hits, and as usual it will be the most disadvantaged in our society who will end up paying the biggest cost when the economy tanks.

 

The usual story, the politicos don't get the result they want (particularly in a referendum) so let's keep re-running it until we do get the result we want, a la the RoI and the Lisbon Treaty.

If they do have a second referendum are we going to have all the provisos that the great and the good say should have been in place for  the original one - e.g 65% turn out, 60-40 majority in favour of which ever result wins?

No doubt there will be a second referendum, but they still might not get the result they want!

[DrewDon]

Yes, because "the politicos" are a homogeneous group that uniformly backed Remain. 

[Glen Sannox]

She's a complete fucking airhead. A trust fund Tory in her position purely due to her extremely rich landowning family.

At least you’re not bitter about it.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

At least you’re not bitter about it.

Glen Minter [emoji38]

[PB 4.2]

Glen Minter

[Antlion]

[DA Baracus]

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

The Brexiteers are split into two groups (OK I know this is a simplification but I'm going with it).

1.  Politicians and others with vested interests who are wealthy enough that they're not concerned and/or have already planned on how to financially benefit from it.

2.  People who will be detrimentally impacted but are too stupid to realise or care.  Many of them are of an age that they won't need to worry too much.

You forgot the slobbering racists

[Granny Danger]

44 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

You forgot the slobbering racists

I'd lump them with the second group.  They're the sort that would be happy to go from living in a decent house to living in a tent so long as they didn't see the occasional 'foreigner'.

They'd also tell you that it was worth it.

 

[NotThePars]

There's a group of people that revolted against a Westminster elite that either waged war on them under Thatcher or ignored their existence under Blair and Cameron. I don't think those people are as worthy of criticism as much as the politicians, businesses and media which treated them with contempt for over 30 years.