I’m massively, hugely against another referendum. The first one has proven utterly corrosive to our representative democracy.
I don’t understand why you wouldn’t want a second vote. The UK was lied to and the leave campaign used incredibly deceptive practices, outright lies eek out the win (and barely). Outside of immigrant issues I think the second most important feature that got people to vote “leave” was thinking Tories, Leave, Brexiters were going to properly fund the NHS if the UK left the EU. The “OMG all our money is going to the EU we could be funding our social safety net instead” was a powerful voice. Of course, equal time and voice was not granted to EU investment in the UK or the fact this was just a massive red herring to get people to vote leave.
I know more than a few Brexiteers, and I fear they’d vote just because admitting they were wrong would be…challenging.
All of that - combined with the tiny majority - is precisely why we don’t need another vote.
I assure you, plenty of time and voice was given to the Remain campaign.
They chose to run “Project Fear” (full of claims that have proved just as fanciful as the bus claim), instead of advocating for the good that EU funding does.
Just as a fun fact: back in 2016 I did some math and figured it would take 5 years for demography alone (holding turnout and underlying preferences constant) to change “Leave” to “Remain.”
There is still strong sentiment for Brexit outside of the major cosmopolitan areas. If there was another referendum I’d expect the same outcome. However, the country has already made a decision and it doesn’t need to start second guessing itself.
bit late for that…
How long before a future UK could ask to be let back in?
My considered opinion is, no backsies.
Have a second vote, no way it passes again.
Norway tells the EU that any special preference for the UK and they’ll tear up their existing agreements with the EU and demand the same.
Also, Bobo’s at it again.
Of course. Take the lie and double down. Right-wingers (outside of a few examples) are almost never for social safety nets and public healthcare. They’d take that money and give tax breaks to the wealthy, or they’d take that money, if there was any real net difference after accounting for EU investment into GB, to offset the loss of business from Brexit to continue things as they are. NHS loses both ways.
They need a tax break to lift people’s spirits again!
Some positive Brexit news for a change ;)
https://www.ft.com/content/558148da-07ec-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5
I’m not sure I buy the argument. What will the EU say about a ministerial override? They’ll say it has to be unanimous between EU 27 member states and the UK.
I don’t have a subscription to FT - can someone summarize the article?
Basically the idea is that the document circulated earlier in the week, detailing possible measures to keep Brexit Britain (within or without a trade agreement) from undermining member states’ economies, shows that the threat of the UK doing a race-to-the-bottom type trade strategy gives it leverage. It also suggests that the EU are also making cake-and-eat-it style arguments, not just the Brexiteers.
The specific thing I was referring to is a comment about state aid. The article says the EU wouldn’t have the moral authority to complain about UK state aid when Article 108 of Lisbon allows the Council to override the state aid rules by unanimous vote. As I say, given the point of the state aid rules, namely to avoid distortions of competition within the single market, I’m not sure I see the point.There’s a big difference between a single country having a ministerial override and every member of a trade bloc acting unanimously.
Is this anything but a complication on negotiations, adding to the pile of “Let’s work towards a deal, but since neither of us can afford to look as if we’ve actually given anything away…”.