Potential Labour government 2nd referendum.

[Guest MattP]

Certainly possible that Jeremy Corbyn becomes the PM next month and if so we have another referendum - this time on whether we remain in the EU or leave it with his "Customs Union" Brexit.

 

Be interesting to see some early numbers.

 

(Not made this anonymous as previous EU ones have had accusations of being a bit rigged)

[Guest MattP]

Latest EU polling if we had a second referendum (note this is a re-run of the first and NOT a Labour 'second referendum with customs union)

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

More democracy to put an end to all the bumbling around trying to implement a vague decision rendered unimplementable by all the contrasting opinions on what it actually means.  Yes please.

 

"But this Corbyn Brexit isn't the Brexit I voted for".  You didn't vote for any kind of Brexit, and that's the problem.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

More democracy to put an end to all the bumbling around trying to implement a vague decision rendered unimplementable by all the contrasting opinions on what it actually means.  Yes please.

 

"But this Corbyn Brexit isn't the Brexit I voted for".  You didn't vote for any kind of Brexit, and that's the problem.

Correct - we voted to leave the European Union after parliament delegated that decision to the people.

 

It was then their job to implement that decision how they saw fit and for us to judge then on it.

[The Blur]

Do anyone really believe that Corybn will be able to negotiate and table a referendum in six months?   I am leaning towards voting Labour reluctantly but I would have thought all PMs would have learnt by now that promising to deliver a Brexit or any related conclusion within a timeframe is a bad idea?  

[Guest MattP]

52 minutes ago, The Blur said:

Do anyone really believe that Corybn will be able to negotiate and table a referendum in six months?   I am leaning towards voting Labour reluctantly but I would have thought all PMs would have learnt by now that promising to deliver a Brexit or any related conclusion within a timeframe is a bad idea?  

I think he probably could. Boris reopened the withdrawal agreement and got it changed in about 90 days.

 

Adding a CU shouldn't be too hard and the EU know this means we remain so they'll be delighted to offer it.

 

I don't think they'll be much need for a long campaign either before it as only a handful of Labour MP's will be on the side of leaving and the rest remaining. 

[foxy boxing]

Do people really want a party leader who says he will be like Switzerland and stay neutral on the EU Referendum. leaders are there to make decisions especially the tough decisions. i don't care what he believes i just want to know what he believes. enough sitting on the fence waiting to see which way to it is going to go so you can jump that way. what do you really think Mr Corbyn.

[Nalis]

Leave voters have to be realistic, the choices are either:

 

A- Boris' deal

B- Corybn's potential deal yet to be negotiated

C - Remain

Edited 23 November 2019 by Nalis

[Nick]

[Guest MattP]

18 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Leave voters have to be realistic, the choices are either:

 

A- Boris' deal

B- Corybn's potential deal yet to be negotiated

C - Remain

True.

 

The election basically sorts it out as either A or C.

[Beechey]

Between a Customs Union agreement or remain? It'd be remain.

You'd be stupid to willingly give away the UK's trading policy permanently.

 

Give me EFTA/EEA, though.

[Strokes]

I’d abstain and subsequently lose faith in democracy. From that I’d feel free to be able to vote for any extreme party promising a proper brexit.

[FerrisBueller]

I can't get my head around more democracy being a bad thing. I can see why leave voters would be disillusioned after the result not being implemented, but equally remain voters are disillusioned that the result of a fraudulent referendum was implemented.

 

Let's not forget here, the Supreme Court ruled that had the referendum been legally binding and not advisory, it would have been void.

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, FerrisBueller said:

I can't get my head around more democracy being a bad thing. I can see why leave voters would be disillusioned after the result not being implemented, but equally remain voters are disillusioned that the result of a fraudulent referendum was implemented.

 

Let's not forget here, the Supreme Court ruled that had the referendum been legally binding and not advisory, it would have been void.

I think the problem is the referendum only became illegitimate when the wrong side won.

 

No one kept yelling it was only advisary when Remain was expected to win, quite the opposite in fact, they told us over and over "this is it", no one bothered about "foreign interference" of the Russians or Obama when remain was going to win, no one was saying we were going to need a "people's vote" as the debate was ill-informed when it was assumed Remain was going to win.

 

It all only became an issue on the morning of the result.

 

And I'll say it yet again. Remain broke the law as well. Remain spent twice as much money as leave.

Edited 23 November 2019 by MattP

[Guest MattP]

Those who believe "more democracy" being a good thing as well. That's actually great if you mean it. How often do you propose we have a referendum on EU membership? Every two years?

 

Can we also have more democracy on issues like immigration, crime and punishment, foreign aid?

 

We all know the answer though don't we? The public might select the wrong result.

 

We just need "more democracy" one more time. (Or two of if Leave wins again)

[SMX11]

Why isn't revolt an option? 

[FerrisBueller]

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

I think the problem is the referendum only became illegitimate when the wrong side won.

 

No one kept yelling it was only advisary when Remain was expected to win, quite the opposite in fact, they told us over and over "this is it", no one bothered about "foreign interference" of the Russians or Obama when remain was going to win, no one was saying we were going to need a "people's vote" as the debate was ill-informed when it was assumed Remain was going to win.

 

It all only became an issue on the morning of the result.

 

And I'll say it yet again. Remain broke the law as well. Remain spent twice as much money as leave.

Well yeah it became an issue afterwards because they were investigated and found guilty.

i appreciate that remain did too, but as I've said before, does that make it any better?

 

Look at Switzerland, they ran a referendum again because the electorate were given data and info that was wrong. That's functioning democracy in action.

 

This whole debate has become so toxic and essentially boils down to 'my side and your side'. Maybe it would be better to take a step back and have a frank discussion about what leaving actually entails. Im aware that you Matt probably have extensive knowledge about what it entails, and you are prepared to take the risk. But to say the rest of the leave vote did, is simply not true.

 

Also, journalists have been investigating the foreign interference for 3 years now, just because you haven't heard about it (the failings of the mainstream media) doesn't mean it isn't being reported. It's clear as day there is something in the report that Boris is dreading, as he's actively blocked it from the public.

 

[Guest MattP]

50 minutes ago, FerrisBueller said:

Well yeah it became an issue afterwards because they were investigated and found guilty.

i appreciate that remain did too, but as I've said before, does that make it any better?

 

Look at Switzerland, they ran a referendum again because the electorate were given data and info that was wrong. That's functioning democracy in action.

 

This whole debate has become so toxic and essentially boils down to 'my side and your side'. Maybe it would be better to take a step back and have a frank discussion about what leaving actually entails. Im aware that you Matt probably have extensive knowledge about what it entails, and you are prepared to take the risk. But to say the rest of the leave vote did, is simply not true.

 

Also, journalists have been investigating the foreign interference for 3 years now, just because you haven't heard about it (the failings of the mainstream media) doesn't mean it isn't being reported. It's clear as day there is something in the report that Boris is dreading, as he's actively blocked it from the public.

There hasn't been an election since the electoral commission was founded that hasn't seen someone or some group guilty of overspending - in the next referendum it's guaranteed someone will also be found guilty of it, you can't just keep annulling results and re-running them.The Switzerland case isn't comparable because the data given in an EU election can't be factual when its based on hypotheticals, from both sides. A referendum on welfare or immigration could be as we can have facts and discuss them.

 

Again, the Russian stuff is still accusations, some of the journalism from people like Cadwaller has been excellent, some of it they've had to print retractions for and Aaron Banks is obviously in the middle of his legal action against her and the Observer for it.

 

But as I say, the most grotesque piece of foreign interference went on right in front of our eyes, when Barack Obama stood on a stage and openly tried to influce the result, but again, nobody cared then as they though Remain were going to win.

[Captain...]

20 hours ago, foxy boxing said:

Do people really want a party leader who says he will be like Switzerland and stay neutral on the EU Referendum. leaders are there to make decisions especially the tough decisions. i don't care what he believes i just want to know what he believes. enough sitting on the fence waiting to see which way to it is going to go so you can jump that way. what do you really think Mr Corbyn.

Do you want a party leader that campaigns one way then has to implement a decision they don't believe in? Cameron campaigned to remain and quit, May then made a right balls up of it as she was seen as a remainer.

 

Staying neutral means he can guide the country on whichever option is decided without being a hypocrite. Will anyone change their mind based on what Corbyn wants? Probably not I think we all know how we will vote, it will be the contents of his deal that will be the deciding factor not Corbyn's opinion. Should he become PM he is right to step back from the referendum campaign which will hopefully be shorter and less intense.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

Do you want a party leader that campaigns one way then has to implement a decision they don't believe in? Cameron campaigned to remain and quit, May then made a right balls up of it as she was seen as a remainer.

 

Staying neutral means he can guide the country on whichever option is decided without being a hypocrite. Will anyone change their mind based on what Corbyn wants? Probably not I think we all know how we will vote, it will be the contents of his deal that will be the deciding factor not Corbyn's opinion. Should he become PM he is right to step back from the referendum campaign which will hopefully be shorter and less intense.

Of course it will be shorter and less intense, you probably won't need it.

 

If we had a BBC debate you might not even be able to find three mainstream politicians to argue for the deal. If you can't surely you can see how completely rigged it is to one side?

 

It's just cowardly, for a start we (Brexiteers) need to know whether he's actually trying to secure the best deal he can or its not even a legitimate referendum. 

Edited 24 November 2019 by MattP

[Legend_in_blue]

Taking a neutral stance is a very sensible idea.  Such a shame that this is one of a handful of sensible ideas amongst many poor ones should he get in.

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Of course it will be shorter and less intense, you probably won't need it.

 

If we had a BBC debate you might not even be able to find three mainstream politicians to argue for the deal. If you can't surely you can see how completely rigged it is to one side?

 

It's just cowardly, for a start we (Brexiteers) need to know whether he's actually trying to secure the best deal he can or its not even a legitimate referendum. 

That's a fair point, but I'm assuming it won't be Corbyn himself, Keir Stamer is Brexit secretary, but seems to be a remainer. They need a Brexit champion to negotiate and back the deal, but it doesn't need to be JC.

[Guest MattP]

20 minutes ago, Captain... said:

That's a fair point, but I'm assuming it won't be Corbyn himself, Keir Stamer is Brexit secretary, but seems to be a remainer. They need a Brexit champion to negotiate and back the deal, but it doesn't need to be JC.

They haven't got one. Does a single person on the shadow front bench really want Brexit? 

 

They'll have to try and shift the job a backbencher like Flint or Onn and I dubt even they'll be up for it.

[pleatout]

On 23/11/2019 at 11:24, MattP said:

I think the problem is the referendum only became illegitimate when the wrong side won.

 

No one kept yelling it was only advisary when Remain was expected to win, quite the opposite in fact, they told us over and over "this is it", no one bothered about "foreign interference" of the Russians or Obama when remain was going to win, no one was saying we were going to need a "people's vote" as the debate was ill-informed when it was assumed Remain was going to win.

 

It all only became an issue on the morning of the result.

 

And I'll say it yet again. Remain broke the law as well. Remain spent twice as much money as leave.

This is the issue I have with leavers.  The '75 referendum DIDNT stop 40 years of Leave whingers banging on and on about leaving, eventually leading to Farage.  That referendum wasnt accepted either by those that lost.  Thatcher (despite supporting Remain) had a cabinet full of "eurosceptics". 

 

I'm still not clear what Leave means and for anyone that voted leave to try and tell me they knew what they wanted makes the argument weaker not stronger. 16.1 million voted for one thing - Remain there is only one sort of remain, what we've got.  17.4 million voted for no deal or Mays deal or Boris's deal or EEA/EFTA or closed borders or no immigration or something else (3 people I've asked that voted leave end immigration, dont want the euro and the "club" is dying, lets get out while we can).  Then leavers whinge about voting again for what they actually want.  Sorry, get your act together, decide what you want and if it will really make this country a better place then we'll all vote for it.

[Bob Hazels shorts]

On 23/11/2019 at 08:26, MattP said:

Certainly possible that Jeremy Corbyn becomes the PM next month and if so we have another referendum - this time on whether we remain in the EU or leave it with his "Customs Union" Brexit.

 

Be interesting to see some early numbers.

 

(Not made this anonymous as previous EU ones have had accusations of being a bit rigged)

I'm sure if Corbyn did get voted in he'd understandably expect that democratic decision to stand?

 

The people have already had their say. The exit process should've been dealt with by a cross party group of those that actually chose to leave.

 

Its been a party political farce with the opposition lead by Corbyn doing what he has made a long and lucrative career of, protesting and opposing just for the sake of it .Corbyn is actually anti EU and made that clear up until recently when he slipped into hokey cokey mode, now he's sitting on the fence.

 

He's chasing the gullible vote