I’m of the opposite opinion. I think that to frustrate Brexit and defy the result of the referendum is a gross miscarriage of democracy. If no deal can be agreed then the UK should leave with no deal of which the detrimental affects have been grossly misrepresented through a campaign of fear.
Unlike the original campaign that got racists and xenophobes to vote FOR the stupid thing. Right.
I’m curious, Draxen, if you are wrong about this, if the political movement you are part of is wrong about this, what should be the penalty?
Let’s assume the worst case total collapse, eating-dog-in-the-street scenario doesn’t happen but that a significant economic crisis does happen: several percentage point rise in unemployment, loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, several percentage point drop in GDP, drop in stock markets, increased cost of goods, increase in evictions, etc. Let’s say on the level of the 2008 recession, at least short term (which IMO is likely).
If I am right, that’s something to be avoided. If you are wrong, what price will you pay? B/C your country sure as hell will pay if you are wrong. Maybe you personally are willing to take that risk what about all those people who do NOT want to take that risk?
Bottom line, unless you are 100% certain, your position is not IMO a responsible one. And if you are 100%, then I want some of whatever you are smoking b/c that’s the good stuff.
Stay, leave, just get on with the fucking thing, the EU has real issues to deal with and shouldn’t spend more time trying to herd cats.
If the result of a referendum is sacrosanct, then the result of another referendum would be…sacrosanct.
Motions are just expressions of the house’s opinion. It doesn’t really force anything.
It’s not sacrosanct, it was merely an advisory.
There is no downside to revoking Article 50 other than upsetting some really fucking horrible people.
You would think that anyone so sure that Brexit is still the will of the people wouldn’t be so scared about asking them again, now we have a negotiated deal to evaluate…
So much this.
I’m not sure how to answer since there is no penalty. I can say that I would be willing to pay the penalty (if you wish to call it that) of a period of adjustment in order for the UK to achieve full independence from the EU. Everyone who doesn’t want to pay that price has the option to lobby their MPs to support Mays deal.
It’s more a matter of principal than anything else. Why is a 2nd referendum necessary when a decision has already been made. You simply cannot have repeat referendums because you disagree with the result. Otherwise what is the point, why bother voting at all if the result you campaigned for isn’t going to be upheld. Best 2 out of 3?
Not to mention there is something perverse about enacting such a monumental change with such narrow margins.
Constitutional amendments in the US have to clear a much higher bar than 50%+1. Hell passing a damn budget requires more than that.
Brexit is a huge change. And enacting something with such large repercussions on a slim majority, especially since those predominantly feeling said repercussions are the young who broadly voted against it, seems obscene.
You know the referendum has no legal force, right? It’s basically a fancy poll. Why take another poll after you’ve taken one, is that what you’re saying?
I mean, I would rather destroy the economy based on the desires of less than a majority of my fellow citizens than ask them again if they really mean it is some position.
Because the situation has fundamentally changed?
The first referendum, by a narrow margin, advised the govt that we wanted to leave the EU. During the campaign, there were obviously no specific details about the form this would take - even leave campaigners were saying it would be out of the question to leave the customs union, for instance.
In response to the advice, the govt negotiated a deal based around May’s red lines (unknown before the vote). ‘Leaving the EU’ has a huge solution space, a huge number of variables. It’s only fair to let the public have a say if they believe these concrete choices - and their consequences - are still acceptable to them.
Although it’s not legally binding the government had promised to implement the result. Since they are elected officials and the referendum was a democratic process to ignore or frustrate the result would be morally wrong in my opinion.
I don’t believe the situation has fundamentally changed. The question was:
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”
The answer was to leave. I don’t see why another referendum is required. The answer was clear. The United Kingdom should leave the EU and that policy should be implemented. Ideally through a negotiated deal (Mays) or if that is not possible through no deal.
So they rejected a no-deal brexit does this mean if the EU rejects an extension that they stay in the EU?
— Hello there, fancy a burger?
— Yeah, go on then
— OK, coming right up, btw the burger is human flesh
— Wait, I didn’t think th-
— YOU VOTED FOR BURGER