It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
By defintion, a second vote is anti-democratic. What kind of person is willing to trash/override a national vote in order to obtain their own goals?
A second referendum is a non-event and a non-starter in my view. It certainly won't be happening while the Tories are in power, with only six months left now until Brexit is completed. It's nothing but a desperate Remainers' pipe dream.
What the Labour Party decides now at its party conference is, quite frankly, irrelevant. Brexit is going to happen in one form or another and it would be much easier if people had the political maturity to realise and accept that. There is no going back now from the result of the referendum. That is the reality many sadly still need to face in the UK and the EU, over two years on.
You may be right in saying that a second referendum is a non-event...in the sense that it is not going to happen. But I take issue with the notion that a second referendum would be undemocratic. Provided, of course, everything goes without interference and especially without manipulation, why shouldn't the electorate change their mind once they see that the circumstances are different from what they thought they were the first time around? Just supposing the outcome would be different now, why should a present-day majority deciding against Brexit be bound by what others have decided two years ago? I think the latest decision should always supercede a not-so-recent one. Provided, again, that everything works out legally and fairly.
Another thing is that a decision like this should not be passed by a simple majority. I'm aware that the UK has no written constitution like most other countries. But a change of constitution usually requires a two-thirds or even three-quarters majority and the satisfaction of all kinds of other safeguards. But the membership in a supranational organisation to which a country cedes certain aspects of autonomy is probably even more relevant than an amendment to the constitution. Therefore, the membership in something like the EU (or the termiation of it) should not simply be decided by a simple majority, but should depend on at least two-thirds of the electorate being in favour of whatever happens. Especially when the first-round winners seem to be afraid that a second-round voting might yield the exactly opposite result.
And don't get me even started on the value of popular referendums. In my opinion, they are the worst and ultimately undemocratic method of getting political decisions. Nothing positive has ever come from them, only blockade and resistance to progress. Including here.
Who are we to judge what the electorate thought? There is no single electorate, there are millions of voters, all of them with individual thoughts. No third party can second guess what these people thought and then use it in an attempt to undermine their original thoughts. Who is to say their new thoughts will be any batter? Again, remarkable patronising.
But there it is. Their thoughts will be better if they vote to remain. If only they were better informed, if only they were better educated, if only they had a chance to change their minds knowing the real facts, if only Brexit required a 2/3rd majority. If only....
This is all wish thinking. Remainers seemed more than happy with the 50% redline in the run up to the vote. Only after, once they lost, did all of the objections come up. Have they not read their Kipling?
Lastly, if a second vote is justified on the basis that the electorate are allowed to change their minds, why not a third or a fourth vote? And why bother to visit the polling station for the first vote if you know, like London buses, another vote will be along shortly? Utter madness.
Campaign groups on both sides had one chance to make their point and voters had one change to vote. It's a perfectly simple concept. But one that seems hard to grasp by some.
Nothing new here.
I have given my vote,and a new referendum means it meant nothing.
Its like tossing a coin looking for heads over tails,and when it lands on tails,keeping tossing it over and over until you get the result you want - heads,with no respect for the original result.
Exactly my feeling about referenda. Coin-tossing.
I agree a second referendum would really just be an abdication of responsibility by MPs as well.
If May can't get her plan through parliament she may need to hold an election. And if a new government can't get their plan through, then that's perhaps where a second referendum comes into play.
I think the Conservative party are terrified of a Labour gov and will go anything to stay in power (as proved by the DUP deal). If May resigns, Cons will elect a new leader and carry on IMHO.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/24/sajid-javid-immigration-insanity-brexit-britain-border
Brexit is for retirees and the unemployed.
Don t forget dimwits and fascists.
IF the Home Secretary suggested this idea re waving people through (notice the use of "reportedly", so not a fact, just a rumour, but lets ignore facts and write a whole article inspired by a rumour because it fits in with our agenda), then this is a sign of our governments pathetic planning (or lack of it) rather than the "insanity" of Brexit.
And notice how "reportedly" is not within the headline so it implies it is a fomal , actual proposal rather than a rumour. A great example of the quality (or lack of it) within the Brexit debate.
IF Brexit is "insane", then why did 52% of those who voted choose this option? Are they insane? or stupid? unable to tell the difference between an insane idea and a non-insane idea. To use the word "insane" has implications re the fitness of the 52% to make a decision rather than respecting that it's their choice and we must move on. And also implies that the writer is somehow superior to the 52% as he has been able to spot/identify an insane idea.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/24/hard-brexiters-new-plan-gets-a-for-idiocy
Meanwhile, John Harris was one of the few journos who went "up North" and outside of the London elite before the vote and semi predicted the outcome, highlighting some of the Brexit motivations witin the Labour seats. His new videos are almost as good. I love the part where he finds Farage outside the conference building having a quick fag. (25 seconds in) and that, knowing the interview will be national and knowing he is being interviewed by a rep from the Guardian, he just chats to him on site and continues the smoke. Seperate from his policies, how many mainstream UK politicians would do that. They would have been whisked away by their spin docters/child minders.
The overall theme of Harris's videos are of a bleak, abandoned electorate who are desperate for some kind of positive change and, rightly or wrongly, saw Brexit as an opportunity for change. Surely, a second vote will re-inforce their perceptions that they have been abandoned and they have no stake in the future of their country? .
The EU has it flaws but has overal brought great welfare and wealth to the Europeans including the UK that was why they wanted to be part in the first place. They did manage to negotiate a sweeter deal than most participants. They gave that up for the idea that they could cherry pick a new deal outside of Europe.
They forgot that these 27 other nations were not happy with the special place the Uk maneuvered itself, so why should the UK get what they want in exchange for nothing. Anybody who expected that, should have had his/her head examined.
Totally agree, we continue to think we are something special and we are not, we are the laughing stock of the world.
Giving the public the vote for such a monumental and important situation was ludicrous.
Apparently you can't say people were to thick to understand what they were doing, well maybe not all of us but some definitely. You only have to look at the amount of people who fell for the rubbish that was said and then now regret their decision.
To think people are under the impression that Toad of Toad Hall, Lord Snooty and that odious racist Farage represent them.
They certainly aren't in for you, get ready for the UK being turned into a tax exile for the rich, that is why Johnson, Mogg & Farage want it, certainly not for the good of the people that is for sure.
If the issue was too important for the public to vote on, what issues are they allowed to vote on? Sorry to state the obvious but they do select the governing party at general elections. Is that issue small enough to be trusted to the public or should that decision be taken away? Perhaps they can only be trusted with local council elections?
You can say they are to thick (you can also say they are too thick) but if thickness is the issue, how do we define who IS allowed to vote? There is a strong argument to say you have to be thick to vote for Trump but at least the nation has respected the process rather than grumpy, resentful democrats asking for a "peoples vote".
To say UK voters "fell for the rubbish" implies that the Brexit campagn was pivotal and I'm not sure what evidence there is for this.
Excellent post and sums up Britain's attitude towards the EU and our sad little delusions of grandeur.
I'm not sure the US has just accepted Trump. Half his administration seems to be actively working towards damage limitation.
The big difference between Trump and Brexit is that Trump will be gone in 6 years maximum - maybe sooner. Brexit and it's negative consequences will be with us for decades.
I agree it's patronising (although often accurate) to describe those who voted for Trump or Brexit as idiots. Many people had legitimate grievances and felt they had no other options to register their protests.
There is a lot of evidence as well to suggest that many Trump voters were motivated by racial grievances - and saw Trump as offering a sort of white supremacist lite option that would restore pride to gun-toting racists. He's certainly given the far right in the US a new lease of life.
Ditto in the UK, the main underlying issue with Brexit appears to have been immigration. Few Brexit voters objected to the single market or trade in respect to the EU. What they wanted to stop was free movement of people. What they didn't realise was that the UK already had total sovereign control over non EU immigration (which is what most of them objected to).
Sadly the poor and low skilled who voted for Brexit are likely to find themselves worse off. Brexit will entrench existing inequality and make Britain poorer.
Per capita the Germans, Dutch, Danes and Swedes are all much better off than the UK. The Dutch export 3 times as much as the Brita, even though their country is a third of the population. The German economy is booming and running huge surpluses- they have so much money they don't know what to do with it. Over the last decade pay in France has gone up by 10% and gone down by 5% in the UK.
Clearly the UK is not working for its people but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU (where other countries are thriving) and everything to do with the UK.
As @SaintMark said above, British politicians use the EU as a whipping post and distraction from their own failures. You can be sure that when we're out and the UK economy is tanking that Boris and co will still blame the EU.
Another example of treating over 17 million people as one block with sweeping statements based on zero evidence. Some may have realised, some not. This whole "they this" and "they that" is pure speculation based on assumptions and guess work. 17 million is one hell of a large figure to make overall statements about.
Personally, I have not come across anyone who thought this at the time.
Meanwhile, another example below of the twisted media reporting. See that the headline reports this as fact but then the text says there "would be a risk" and "could trigger".
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/26/no-deal-brexit-minor-port-delays-30-minutes-bankrupt-1-in-10-uk-firms
"Researchers at Imperial College London estimate just two extra minutes of checks could more than triple the existing queues at ports, potentially leading to motorway tailbacks in Kent up to 29 miles long."
So if the tripled queue is 29 miles long, then the normal , untripled queue is just under 10 miles long?
We can try and say people voted for this and people voted for that but the fact is this was too big a deal to hand to the British public to decide.
Not just because people didn't understand because people can be manipulated with propaganda and scare tactics (on both sides).
Although the lies from the leave camp were so much more explicit and written bold. Yes some people voted on the strength of of that big red bus.
I can't understand this personally because I saw through the lie but some people were passionately drawn to vote leave on the basis of this because they thought it would help to save the NHS, when the truth was nowhere near this.
Some people also voted because they felt things were at an all time low so how worst could it get, the disinfranchised and also some just wanted to stick 2 fingers up at Cameron as well.
Why this was just wasn't an advisory referendum rather than an explicit whoever wins we go that way is beyond me, Cameron hopefully will have karma visited on him one day for such a decision.
I do hope I'm wrong, I said it at the beginning of this ludicrousness but I haven't seen anything since then to convince me this country isn't going off the end of a cliff and people are just using it's democracy excuse to justify the madness.
Our politicians (hardly any of which believe Brexit is anything other than a monumental act of self harm) have abdicated responsibility at a time of national crisis.
I think Brexit will happen and it will probably be an ugly fudge, with the UK stuck in the EU orbit for eternity (how could it end any other way?).
Give it 10 or 20 years and a new generation of British politicians will have to pick up the pieces and reverse the damage - perhaps by seeking to rejoin. By that point the UK is likely to have fallen even further behind Germany, Holland etc and we will be negotiating from a position of massive weakness.
Churchill and Thatcher would be turning in their graves at the insanity of it all. Churchill was a key player in the creation of many of the major European institutions and Thatcher basically created the single market. Now the UK is turning it's back on decades of hard won peace and prosperity to go and, like a moody self-harming adolescent go and 'find itself' in the big bad world outside.
Give it a few years and the UK will come skulking back, tail between legs and asking the bank of mum and dad for a hand out and bedroom to crash in until it's sorted itself out. Let's hope France and Germany are willing to play the part of the benevolent and understanding parents.
I think Brexit is like an oil tanker. As much as I'd like it to, it's not turning around any time soon.
1. Has popular opinion changed sufficiently to make a remain vote more likely? Probably not.
2. Who is going to legislate for a 2nd referendum? Not the Tory or Labour MPs whose constituents voted leave - which is a majority of them.
So it's going to be Brexit, I'm pretty sure of that. Probably it will be a big mess and almost certainly the British people will see none of the fictitious 'benefits' that they've been promised. We will be poorer and the country will be set back a couple of decades. After that who knows. It will become part of history.
The UK could well disintegrate. Scotland would probably vote for independence given a second chance. And a vote for reunification in Ireland is becoming a statistical inevitability as the Catholic community out-breads the Protestants in the north. Scotland would obviously seek membership of the EU immediately (although Spain might block them). Northern Ireland would automatically become part of a the EU again and a big economic boost from joining the Republic.
Leaving England and Wales to go it along on the high seas as Global Britain lite. It will no doubt be a glorious failure - one to be proud of.
I'm sure even when little England is on it's own even then they'll still be unable to admit they are wrong.
Then finally we'll realise what an insignificant patch of land we are, we've been convincing ourselves we are contenders for far too long, standing behind the big bully America.
It's ironic both nations are falling from grace and stature around the same time and the reasons for it aren't that dissimilar.
We are both about to learn the world can and will function without our posturing, war moungering and hypocrisy.
A EU membership comes with certain obligations and the UK is nuts to think that any of the 27 countries is going to give the UK anything they seem to expect. All advantages of trading with Europe have to be renegotiated and the UK government does not want to do that.
I foresee a lot of companies that will close and move and a lot of companies that depend currently on the EU and will not be able to cope with the UK market solely and will bankrupt. May and her cronies are certainly not interested in the economics of Brexit just posturing and politics
The common men/women will pay the bill.
Democracy has pros and cons. Sometimes, you have to realise that your views are in a minority (within those that voted). I hated Thatcher but time and time again, she got re-elected. I could never understand why people voted for her but it never crossed my mind to undermine the process with the kind of reasoning that we are now seeing. Respecting the views of those you disagree with is a core part of a working democracy.
"the voters did not understand", "the voters have the right to change their minds", "they did not get a full majority", "the wording on the bus",
will the voters be more educated next time? will the campaign be 100% free of lies (on both sides),
all of the same objections could be made of the second vote....accept of course if remainers win. If remainers win, then it will be a fair result.