EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

the 50ish% of the population who who support it.

Is it though?

People have died.
People have reached voting age.
People have found the brexit on offer to be at odds with what they thought they were voting for.
Some voted to stick it to the man rather than actually vote to leave.

Even just looking at the original 52%, a significant number are remainers now, and a lot of the rest aren't "leave at any cost".

Defeats by Prime Minister...

Thatcher - 4 in 11 years
Major - 6 in 7 years
Blair - 4 in 10 years
Brown - 3 in 3 years
Cameron - 10 in 6 years
May - 33 in 3 years
Johnson - 6 in one week

STRONG AND STABLE

Beautiful

Is it though?

1) We can't know the number without another referendum, so we can only go by that at this point.

2) And if we did, then okay: 45%. Or 40%. Or 35%. But at what point do you find it reasonable to dismiss the results of the referendum and the n% of people both democratically and emotionally invested in it?

3) And if you are correct and the majority has diminished (and I hope it has), then this is more reason (from a remainers perspective) for a second referendum, not less.

Stella Creasy

My art teacher was called Stella Creasy... Off to Google for a bit...

Could be her daughter...

Sorry... Pip Creasy, that was her name... Stella was an old girlfriend...

As you were...

EU referendum, brexit and Joe's sexual conquests. Insert backstop jokes here.

Other way 'round, Bruce, I was very much the conquered on that one... 🙃

On the environment, I think you need to look what on balance was achieved while a minority in coalition. Such as the Green Investment Bank and the record levels of RE investment over that period. Jo Swinson's voting record is mixed, and not as strong as it should be. However, I don't think cherry-picking the forestry vote is useful.

On the voting record as a guide to policy, I agree you need to look at it, but it's important to remember we have an adversarial party system, as well as bills being made up of a number of elements*. MPs generally vote with or against the government on party lines.

*e.g. JC has voted against raising the basic income tax free allowance. It seems unlikely it's because he thinks poor people need to pay more tax.

On a lighter note, this seems like a good analogy

1 Attachment

What is often still missed is that there still is a criminal investigation into spending that is happily sat upon by the police.

Dismissing a referendum because it wasn't sound (something that was bypassed by voting it in as binding, with no further checks) while there's been so much proof of dodgy money and we still have no investigation into all funding seems to have dropped of the agenda completely.

Now =maybe= that is an argument for a second ref with strict rules and not a cancellation of A50, but so far it has all been very dodgy.

Fresh allegation that Cummings wants to replay the dirty tricks of the referendum with UKGov website usage information as the raw data.

thats a proper camberwell carrot in her left hand

My local Lib Dem MP voted to sell national parkland in South Wales.

It’s the only time I’ve ever written to an MP (just to ask “hi guis, wtf?”).

The tories backtracked on the policy but not before I got an aggressive reply doubling down on his voting decision, lol!

.

As of 2018 (below), and theres quite a few polls / studies ot coroborate polling trend.

But at what point do you find it reasonable to dismiss the results

Well fuck FPTP firstly. You can't expect a convincing victory on such a marginal majority. Yes there is an incredibly slim majority of voters who wanted to leave but for all intents and purposes we were left with an electorate split almost squarely down the middle (17.6 to 16.8million).

Use of a supermajorities threshold is well practiced in democracies across the globe, and for very good reason. I can think it would have been especially prudent on a binary vote where one of the options involves a state of change.

1 Attachment

I think we probably do need another referendum to put the genie back in the bottle (or allow said genie to properly fuck the country, of course). It'll be the third one, which leads me to wonder whether we might be able to make some progress by offering a referendum every 10 years (say) on our EU membership, i.e. the next referendum isn't final, which would give liberal-leavers who actually had valid reasons to vote leave the opportunity to vote remain now, given what an evident shit-show leaving in the next couple of months would be, and therefore some time to make the case for leaving in 2030. We could also out some proper legislation around it.

People who didn't have a single reason that they could articulate for leaving (other than "to see what it's like) will be annoyed, but hey ho. Eggs/omelettes.

can think it would have been especially prudent on a binary vote where one of the options involves a state of change.

That sounds like libtard talk to me.

Polls, thankfully, are not referendums.

Eggs/omelettes

I know you said second referendum, and one reason why I agree it's necessary is maniacs. Let's not forget Joe Cox. We don't need more radicalised people.

This is neither an easy, nor a good situation.

10 people who don't believe in dinosaurs are deciding our futures.....

Can @Dammit ‘s recurring decade referendum please a) coincide with Eurovision b) have a threshold of 75% vote before anything actually has to happen?

#libtardtalk

That might be a plan - if we vote to leave then we have to host Eurovision every year as a quid-pro-quo for SM access.

What do you disagree with about that statement?