Your life in their hands!

[DampDog]

If we don't get a gender fluid midget as PM, we burn the city!

"When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die!"

Or blame someone else, ignore the problem or deny there is a problem. I recon Boris could pass for a fat Joffrey, what with his natural empathy and people skills. That and his taste for loosing his bolt into a passing maiden.

 

[stockhausen]

The point here is that the Prime Minister for Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England should not (in my humble opinion) be selected by some 124,000 people drawn from a very limited and entirely unrepresentative section of society - particularly at this time.

We need a second Referendum followed by a General Election.

 

[h4rm0ny]

The point here is that the Prime Minister for Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England should not (in my humble opinion) be selected by some 124,000 people drawn from a very limited and entirely unrepresentative section of society - particularly at this time.

Our elected leaders should be chosen on the basis of qualification, not representativeness of arbitrary characteristics. In a team do you select as leader the person who is the most average? I would hope not. Now if you were to argue that the leader should be representative of the people's values and desires, then yes - that would be correct. Except that's the precise opposite of what you argued. You do not see individuals. You see group identities.

 

[Thecaferacer]

We need a second Referendum followed by a General Election.

No what you need is a general election where the two parties stand diametrically opposed, representing either leave or remain. If the remain party wins a majority then they could comfortably propose a second referendum.

 

[Irish_Tom]

No what you need is a general election where the two parties stand diametrically opposed, representing either leave or remain. If the remain party wins a majority then they could comfortably propose a second referendum.

Why would they need a second referendum if they stood on a remain manifesto and won a clear majority in Parliament? In that instance they simply revoke Article 50.

 

[h4rm0ny]

No what you need is a general election where the two parties stand diametrically opposed, representing either leave or remain. If the remain party wins a majority then they could comfortably propose a second referendum.

How will the parties settle who gets to represent Remain?

 

[Akagi]

If we don't get a gender fluid midget as PM, we burn the city!

Did you just assume their sizedentity?

 

[Thecaferacer]

Why would they need a second referendum if they stood on a remain manifesto and won a clear majority in Parliament? In that instance they simply revoke Article 50.

The decision to exit the EU came from a referendum on a binary question. A general election elects individual MPs with the general party manifesto in the background. In order for there to be true consensus and to put the issue to bed then a party campaigning for remain would need to command a majority, then hold a second referendum. If remain won this time then leave voters would have little recourse but to accept the result.

 

[ricid]

Such as?

Anyone countenancing a no deal brexit. I've yet to hear any argument for no deal that doesn't boil down to xenophobia, so Raab, McVey, Johnson, Leadsom..

 

[Thecaferacer]

How will the parties settle who gets to represent Remain?

That's for them to decide. If both Labour and Lib-dems both decide to run on a remain ticket, then then party with lower chance of election victory would logically choose to not field candidates or advise their base to vote on other party lines. It has happened before. If of course the remain vote was split, leading to an overall loss then that's the way the cookie crumbles in a multi-party system

The third way is for pro-remain platform parties to form a pre-election pact that was manifested, clearly stating a coalition regardless of the result to ensure overall majority. Very hard to agree to without the usual blackmailing with policies the minor party wants implementing as part of the deal.

 

[Irish_Tom]

The decision to exit the EU came from a referendum on a binary question. A general election elects individual MPs with the general party manifesto in the background. In order for there to be true consensus and to put the issue to bed then a party campaigning for remain would need to command a majority, then hold a second referendum. If remain won this time then leave voters would have little recourse but to accept the result.

I’m not denying that would be the clearest route to ‘putting the issue to bed’ but it absolutely isn’t necessary from a political/legal perspective.

If a party had a manifesto pledge to revoke A50 and they commanded a parliamentary majority, they simply pass the necessary legislation. It doesn’t require a second referendum at all.

 

[Thecaferacer]

I’m not denying that would be the clearest route to ‘putting the issue to bed’ but it absolutely isn’t necessary from a political/legal perspective.

If a party had a manifesto pledge to revoke A50 and they commanded a parliamentary majority, they simply pass the necessary legislation. It doesn’t require a second referendum at all.

A fresh act to revoke would need to go through the House of Lords. The cleanest way is to have that act backed up with a fresh binary choice referendum. Any new government could do what they wanted, but to avoid future issues, it must be handled in a way that prevents another party coming to power in 5 years and again proposing another vote.

If say Labour and Lib-dem formed a coalition and just decided revoke, that would alienate other party voters who would argue the result of the first referendum was derailed by an unknown number of remain voters (since not all labour voters want to remain) a new referendum across the board gives all voters an equal voting right and truly puts it to bed.

What would happen if the conservatives stood on a firm leave platform and got elected? Would remain respect that vote? The only viable solution is second referendum

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

a new referendum across the board gives all voters an equal voting right

Lol, except those who voted leave first time around.

 

[Thecaferacer]

Lol, except those who voted leave first time around.

It's a cluster **** but the Tories got elected in 2015 partially off the back of Cameron promising a referendum to leave in order to win back the UKIP vote. If a new government was to be elected on the back of a new vote then the same rules apply and leave voters still get to cast a vote.

My gut feeling is a new vote will not go the way remain will hope.

 

[robgmun]

The Tories have a better track record at diversity in their party leader than Labour do.

Two femle leaders/prime ministers

Several women and non white people in the current race.

And the only diverse politician in the front benches of Labour, Diane Abbott, regularly ***** the bed when she appears on TV, yeah she makes a great example of diverse quotas

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

I understand what you are saying amd it isn't wrong. But should we take the referendum (not Brexit but all referendums), as a democratic instrument, round the back, put a pillow over its head, and shoot it? Cameron made a serious error of judgement, as did many laissez-faire remainers by not voting. How can we tell 52% that their votes didn't count, lol soz lol?

 

[Thecaferacer]

I understand what you are saying amd it isn't wrong. But should we take the referendum (not Brexit but all referendums), as a democratic instrument, round the back, put a pillow over its head, and shoot it? Cameron made a serious error of judgement, as did many laissez-faire remainers by not voting. How can we tell 52% that their votes didn't count, lol soz lol?

We can't without risking a serious crisis in the democratic process. But we are where we are. The country is currently deadlocked and something needs to be done to get the gears moving again. A new vote whereby remain won with a 1% margin would cause hell on earth but would be bolstered if a government won an election beforehand specifically running on a remain ticket.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

The problem, as I see it, is that remain is a clear option that can be easily implemented. It doesn't need breaking down into 'what kind of remain?' options. Even if that's what was causing pressure internally in the Tory Party and precipitated the whole sorry episode. MPs are voted in to find the best way to enact the will of the people under democratic mandate such that the UK is best served. The will was expressed and the MPs can't agree how to do it for the best. How on earth can the population agree a better way?

It could be that a portion of the Brexit voters were making a statement about how unrepresentative the two-party, first past the post system is. (See how I kept it on topic there?). If they didn't then, they are probably all going to think it in the event of a second referendum.

 

[Hades]

Anyone countenancing a no deal brexit. I've yet to hear any argument for no deal that doesn't boil down to xenophobia, so Raab, McVey, Johnson, Leadsom..

Why does supporting a no deal Brexit, as opposed to a Brexit with a deal, mean the person is xenophobic? That doesn't make sense.

 

[Thecaferacer]

The problem, as I see it, is that remain is a clear option that can be easily implemented. It doesn't need breaking down into 'what kind of remain?' options. Even if that's what was causing pressure internally in the Tory Party and precipitated the whole sorry episode. MPs are voted in to find the best way to enact the will of the people under democratic mandate such that the UK is best served. The will was expressed and the MPs can't agree how to do it for the best. How on earth can the population agree a better way?

It could be that a portion of the Brexit voters were making a statement about how unrepresentative the two-party, first past the post system is. (See how I kept it on topic there?). If they didn't then, they are probably all going to think it in the event of a second referendum.

I agree but then leave, in its raw format would be a full withdrawal on WTO terms. That is the default position. Leaving with a trade deal is a preferred option but isn't technically needed to fully implement Brexit.

Parliament and the media have made leaving on WTO a supposedly untenable situation and tried to claim Brexit is undeliverable. Brexit is deliverable but very difficult without economic shock. It's like voting to go to war whilst not wanting to risk one single death.

I think we still haven't got to grips with the voting demographic on Brexit. All leave voters wanted to leave. Remain also had a portion of voters who were Anti-Eu but didn't want to risk the economic damage or preferred to be in rather than out or swerved to remain at zero hour. Not all remain voters were flag waving federalists and that is what may cause issues with a new vote.