REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[leedswolf]

Within our system yes. But the system is not hold another referendum. There can only be Brexit. That is what the referendum result demands. The only way to keep some of the benefits is to ensure that it's a soft Brexit and that is not going to happen with this lot. So my only hope is that this government fails during a transition or negotiation period and a government or coalition in favour of a softer stance takes us to Brexit. For that to happen needs time. To get time article 50 needs to be put on hold. It does no side any favours.

There can only be Brexit? I disagree completely with you. Pointless continuing any discussion.

 

[leedswolf]

Unlike most modern states, Britain does not have a codified constitution but an unwritten one formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions. Professor Robert Blackburn explains this system, including Magna Carta's place within it

You do know that most if not all of the stuff in the Magna Carta has been changed by .............. you guessed it - parliament!

 

[Deleted Cyber]

You do know that most if not all of the stuff in the Magna Carta has been changed by .............. you guessed it - parliament!

Still a constitution. Saying we don't have a constitution is just bollocks.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

There can only be Brexit? I disagree completely with you. Pointless continuing any discussion.

What is the other choice that

1. Respects the leave vote
2. Does not require a second referendum


I am all ears.

 

[YoungWolf]

What is the other choice that

1. Respects the leave vote
2. Does not require a second referendum


I am all ears.

How long after Brexit are we allowed to have a referendum on rejoining the EU then, never?

 

[Tredman]

If brexiters were confident of their position then there would no be fear of a second referendum.

The fact they are terrified of one speaks volumes - fool me once shame on you, fool me twice etc.

 

[Johnny75]

What is the other choice that

1. Respects the leave vote
2. Does not require a second referendum


I am all ears.

It's amazing that you still don't understand that some of those that voted to remain don't give a fuck about the leave vote and want a second referendum and will apply themselves to get this result.

Indeed there are some 700,000 people who marched on parliament for the very thing you won't consider. Maybe time to change?

 

[Deleted Cyber]

How long after Brexit are we allowed to have a referendum on rejoining the EU then, never?

One day if you want or one week! If so then the stay out of rejoin options would need to be clear, truthful and binding. But it can only happen when we are out.our system demands that the result of the original referendum is honoured in my view. Unless you can see a way that does not create chaos and make our political system a laughing stock, more so than it already is?

You can't just ignore a result because hindsight shows that delivery of the outcome is bloody difficult. You have to solve the problems and take the time to do it. My view is that if the " will of the people" has changed so much the correct way to do that is to vote in a government and give them a mandate to overturn the result of the referendum ( highly unlikely) or to leave with a soft Brexit.(more plausible)

 

[leedswolf]

Still a constitution. Saying we don't have a constitution is just bollocks.

I never stated we didn't have a 'constitution' though. Do you know how the UK's uncodified constitution works? If so tell me why having a second referendum or a third, fourth, etc is unconstitutional please.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Ok

Let's try and stimulate this . Let's do the following which is probably what Cameron should have done in the first place.

Spend the next two years negotiating and clarifying the following

1. What a hard Brexit is and it's costs
2. What a soft Brexit is and it's costs
3. What remaining means

Then hold the vote for
Hard
Soft
Remain.

I have no problems with that. It takes account of what we have learnt in two years. I believe that there would be a leave vote for a soft Brexit.

 

[leedswolf]

What is the other choice that

1. Respects the leave vote
2. Does not require a second referendum


I am all ears.

There isn't one.

 

[leedswolf]

Ok

Let's try and stimulate this . Let's do the following which is probably what Cameron should have done in the first place.

Spend the next two years negotiating and clarifying the following

1. What a hard Brexit is and it's costs
2. What a soft Brexit is and it's costs
3. What remaining means

Then hold the vote for
Hard
Soft
Remain.

I have no problems with that. It takes account of what we have learnt in two years. I believe that there would be a leave vote for a soft Brexit.

Probable outcome would be remain, the leave vote would be split.

We already knew what remaining means as we are in the EU.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

I never stated we didn't have a 'constitution' though. Do you know how the UK's uncodified constitution works? If so tell me why having a second referendum or a third, fourth, etc is unconstitutional please.

We don't have a constitution

.
Tredman did

 

[leedswolf]

.
Tredman did

Then address tredman. I'm waiting for your answers btw.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Probable outcome would be remain, the leave vote would be split.

We already knew what remaining means as we are in the EU.

The old EU. It will not be the same EU now. It may have learnt from its arrogance. It may not.

You lot have pilloried me on here. You say I am myopic and entrenched yet I am the only poster who ever posts possible or plausible options other than scrap it. Come on!

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Then address tredman. I'm waiting for your answers btw.

Show me a precedent in our Constitutional history where we have held a referendum and not enacted it's result?

 

[leedswolf]

You say I am myopic and entrenched yet I am the only poster who ever posts possible or plausible options other than scrap it. Come on!

Why don't you blow your own trumpet? Oh you just have. I have yet to see you post one plausible option.

 

[leedswolf]

Show me a precedent in our Constitutional history where we have held a referendum and not enacted it's result?

Answer my questions please.

 

[leedswolf]

Show me a precedent in our Constitutional history where we have held a referendum and not enacted it's result?

Ok. Show me where it is stated that EU referendum is legally binding. I will give you a clue, there is no such clause.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

I never stated we didn't have a 'constitution' though. Do you know how the UK's uncodified constitution works? If so tell me why having a second referendum or a third, fourth, etc is unconstitutional please.

It's not. You could. The reasons against it.

1. Cost
2. The risk setting such a precedent would have
3 government admitting that they got number 1 so badly wrong that 2 is necessary.

1. May be justified
2. May cause anarchy
3 never gonna happen

Hence why a second referendum must take account not what has been learnt in 30 months and have the transparent answers to show what each option means. It would then be a template for any EU country who wished to leave so there could be a business argument to do it.