If there is a second EU referendum

[AngryRam]

I see the recent Austrian General Election is to be 're-run' because the far right 'Freedom Party' didn't 'like' being beaten by the Green Party. Precedent anyone?
Having thought about this a lot over the last week here are three reasons for not going ahead with the result of the EU vote.
1. The concept of having a Referendum over such huge issues is deeply flawed because most people, including me, aren't capable of fully appreciating the complexities.
2. Apparently 2.3m Brexiteers have now witnessed the chaos that has just begun, acknowledged that they were misled by the lies of at least one subsequently entirely discredited politician and now regret their vote.
3. If we must have a Referendum - and I believe we have a system of 'Parliamentary Democracy' to avoid such nonsense - shouldn't a majority decision where a 'two horse race' is concerned constitute the wishes of at least 51% of the whole electorate, not just those who are able/feel intellectually equipped/can be bothered to vote?

Okay I will bite..
1. Who has the capabilities then.. Please don't say the politicians, they just lie apparently.
2. Proof please. Back up the claim that a large section of the Leave vote would change..
3. How would that ever work.. Force people to vote? What about people who spoil they ballot papers.. Hang them.. There is nothing to say that even if we were able to do that, that the result would have been any different.

[Trickytreesreds]

I see the recent Austrian General Election is to be 're-run' because the far right 'Freedom Party' didn't 'like' being beaten by the Green Party. Precedent anyone?
Having thought about this a lot over the last week here are three reasons for not going ahead with the result of the EU vote.
1. The concept of having a Referendum over such huge issues is deeply flawed because most people, including me, aren't capable of fully appreciating the complexities.
2. Apparently 2.3m Brexiteers have now witnessed the chaos that has just begun, acknowledged that they were misled by the lies of at least one subsequently entirely discredited politician and now regret their vote.
3. If we must have a Referendum - and I believe we have a system of 'Parliamentary Democracy' to avoid such nonsense - shouldn't a majority decision where a 'two horse race' is concerned constitute the wishes of at least 51% of the whole electorate, not just those who are able/feel intellectually equipped/can be bothered to vote?

Bag a bollox

1. You can say that on a general election. You read their manifesto's/listen to their promises - then what they don't tell you has ramifications for someone in society. Even what they do tell you, means not everyone will understand in complexities.

2. See above- though where you get your figures from eludes me.

3. You have the right to vote. No one can force you to vote.
If you don't, then you don't get to moan about **** all.
The results are what they are. The majority wins, no matter how many of the losers moan and whinge.

The country was promised one in a manifesto. Said government was elected. Vote is cast, deal with it.

[ramAnag]

Angry...
1. Well what do we elect and pay them for if they're just going to pass the decision back to Joe Public?
2. It was reported in The Independent but I can't tell you more than that.
3. That's the point...you don't have to force them to vote (although I believe voting is compulsory in Australia) but if everyone knows that there has to be an actual majority (51%) of the whole electorate rather than just those who turn up it might concentrate a few minds and we would at least then be able to talk seriously about the 'will of the people'. (Approx. 36% can never be described as 'the people have spoken' imo).

P.S. Can you get me one of those nice Scandinavian hi-tech potato peelers tomorrow?

[ramAnag]

Bag a bollox

1. You can say that on a general election. You read their manifesto's/listen to their promises - then what they don't tell you has ramifications for someone in society. Even what they do tell you, means not everyone will understand in complexities.

2. See above- though where you get your figures from eludes me.

3. You have the right to vote. No one can force you to vote.
If you don't, then you don't get to moan about **** all.
The results are what they are. The majority wins, no matter how many of the losers moan and whinge.

The country was promised one in a manifesto. Said government was elected. Vote is cast, deal with it.

'Bag a bollux', thank you for that erudite response.

Of course you can say that 'on a General Election' but the alternative to an elected government is Totalitarianism. We elect a government, which we can get rid of within five years, as part of a Parliamentary Democracy which we employ to make such decisions. Why then ask us to make this one enormous decision?

Voting is compulsory in some countries. Some people may not have been able to vote...illness, unavoidable situations, work commitments, temporary addresses, thinking they didn't know enough etc.

The majority didn't win...that's the point. That's why if we have to have any referendum - and personally I hope we never do again - to achieve a result there would have to be a vote equivalent to at least 51% of the electorate.

'Dealing' with something doesn't necessarily imply tacit acceptance.

[ramspride]

'Bag a bollux', thank you for that erudite response.

Of course you can say that 'on a General Election' but the alternative to an elected government is Totalitarianism. We elect a government, which we can get rid of within five years, as part of a Parliamentary Democracy which we employ to make such decisions. Why then ask us to make this one enormous decision?

Voting is compulsory in some countries. Some people may not have been able to vote...illness, unavoidable situations, work commitments, temporary addresses, thinking they didn't know enough etc.

The majority didn't win...that's the point. That's why if we have to have any referendum - and personally I hope we never do again - to achieve a result there would have to be a vote equivalent to at least 51% of the electorate.

'Dealing' with something doesn't necessarily imply tacit acceptance.

RamAnag.

Definition of majority is 'the greater number'. Votes for remain 16,141,241. Votes for Leave 17,410,742. Unless my maths is wrong 17,410,742 is greater than 16,141,241 but I must admit being a silver surfer I did go to school a long time ago and maybe things have changed. I see there is a protest march in London tomorrow. Not sure what they're protesting about maybe it is that the minority didn't win or that because they are so thick they forgot to vote.

[AngryRam]

Angry...
1. Well what do we elect and pay them for if they're just going to pass the decision back to Joe Public?
2. It was reported in The Independent but I can't tell you more than that.
3. That's the point...you don't have to force them to vote (although I believe voting is compulsory in Australia) but if everyone knows that there has to be an actual majority (51%) of the whole electorate rather than just those who turn up it might concentrate a few minds and we would at least then be able to talk seriously about the 'will of the people'. (Approx. 36% can never be described as 'the people have spoken' imo).

P.S. Can you get me one of those nice Scandinavian hi-tech potato peelers tomorrow?

Yep will pick you one up tomorrow.. No worries, I am sure I will have time..

The Independent eh.. Must be true! These forecasts and polls are rubbish, don't waste your time.. Way too many variables to be taken seriously.
P3 still does not mean it would necessarily go your way.

[macstheman]

We could do with a 'hung' parliament - seems a good result to me......'hung' the lot of 'em!!!

[Gaspode]

The majority didn't win...that's the point. That's why if we have to have any referendum - and personally I hope we never do again - to achieve a result there would have to be a vote equivalent to at least 51% of the electorate.

The majority of those that bothered to get off their backsides and cast a vote won - it was set out in the voting rules that the winners would be side that had the most VOTES. It was hardly a secret that the referendum was coming up and indeed there was a fairly vigorous campaign to persuade people to register to vote - and postal voting made it pretty easy for everyone who wanted to to take part. Anyone who didn't (whether via choice or stupidity) has only themselves to blame and the losing side complaining about the terms of the vote at this stage is nothing more than sour grapes....

As for the reason 'we' were asked to decide rather than the politicians was that Cameron simply wouldn't risk losing power by making the in-out decision a party-political one and including it in the Tory manifesto (which would have ripped the Tory party in two) and thereby also forcing Labour to also set out their position (and as has been seen by Corbyn (for some unfathomable reason) deciding to try to get all of the Labour support to do as he told them (almost as if he thought they were too stupid to make their own decision)), it would seem that Cameron made the right call - if he hadn't promised the referendum (something a fair number of the public had been calling for) there would have been a particularly huge upswell in people voting UKIP at the last general election - probably enough to leave the country with yet another coalition - but this time involving UKIP with a significant number of MPs and acting as the 'king-makers' rather than the Lib-Dems...I dread to think what state the country would be in if that had been the case....

[roger_ramjet]

We could do with a 'hung' parliament - seems a good result to me......'hung' the lot of 'em!!!

I would like to be hung too

[ramAnag]

RamAnag.

Definition of majority is 'the greater number'. Votes for remain 16,141,241. Votes for Leave 17,410,742. Unless my maths is wrong 17,410,742 is greater than 16,141,241 but I must admit being a silver surfer I did go to school a long time ago and maybe things have changed. I see there is a protest march in London tomorrow. Not sure what they're protesting about maybe it is that the minority didn't win or that because they are so thick they forgot to vote.

Patronising to say the least ramspride...so I'll answer in kind. Perhaps they didn't teach percentages when you were at school but I'd love you to explain to me how 36% represents a majority/the voice of the people/ or whatever you want to call it.

P.S. Angry, it's not about it 'going my way'...it really isn't. If I thought there was a genuine majority in favour of 'Leave' I'd suck it up and just carry on.


If only 36% or so of 'the people' want to 'Leave' then doesn't that imply that 64% either actively don't or at least didn't want to enough to go out and vote.

Maybe the 30% or so who didn't actually vote are to 'blame', but tomorrow's demonstration is, I imagine, about the fact that we are about to be led down this ruinous road by a minority who believed a pack of lies put about by an already discredited politician (or two). Perhaps 'Democracy' wasn't a concept you were taught about at school...it means 'majority rule' and, at the risk of labouring the point - which I probably overstepped a long time ago - having the support of 36% of the 'people' (aka electorate) can never, when there are only two options, represent a democratic majority.