Granny Danger Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 (edited) I agree. However, if the "big" three - Con, Lab, Lib Dem (and Greens) - ALL have it in their manifesto to hold another EU referendum, then no matter what government is cobbled together, they will be able to claim "the people have endorsed a second referendum". So the only place for leavers to go will be UKIP. Which could prove interesting. I would be opposed to holding a GE because people don't like the referendum result; I think that's morally dishonest and manipulative. That aside I have severe practical concerns about a GE because it will drive voters into the arms of UKIP. There may be some Leave voters who are unhappy that they actually won, but there will be millions of people who are happy with the result and who will be furious if they see an attempt to change the result by political shenanigans. Edited June 26, 2016 by Granny Danger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Any political party absolutely can make a manifesto commitment to do whatever they want. If they get elected they are within their right to follow through with the commitment. If the people feel strong enough about it they won't vote for it. You can disagree all you want but there's absolutely nothing even moralky wrong with it happening. We will just have to agree to disagree on this. You appear to think that asking people to vote on 100 things gives a right to overturn a referendum on a single issue. I don't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Mob rule? Seriously? A referendum on a single issue with a respectfully high turnout is mob rule? I think you're taking the piss here Welshy. Maybe a bit . But I do think a lot of people based their decision on the many pure lies spouted out by Leave. Remain may have painted a bleak picture but I don't remember them telling a single porkie. When they are aware of the full picture many may feel they deserve a second vote. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Maybe a bit . But I do think a lot of people based their decision on the many pure lies spouted out by Leave. Remain may have painted a bleak picture but I don't remember them telling a single porkie. When they are aware of the full picture many may feel they deserve a second vote. World War 3. An emergency budget immediately after a leave vote. The end to the peace process 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Maybe a bit . But I do think a lot of people based their decision on the many pure lies spouted out by Leave. Remain may have painted a bleak picture but I don't remember them telling a single porkie. When they are aware of the full picture many may feel they deserve a second vote. By that logic every time we elect a government and find they told lies to get elected then we should have another vote. It would have a severe impact on our educational system as the schools would need to be turned into full time polling stations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowdenConvert Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Maybe a bit . But I do think a lot of people based their decision on the many pure lies spouted out by Leave. Remain may have painted a bleak picture but I don't remember them telling a single porkie. When they are aware of the full picture many may feel they deserve a second vote.And the two major lies were recanted very soon after the result. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 (edited) So the only place for leavers to go will be UKIP. Which could prove interesting. Keen observers of the last general election in Scotland will realise why a three way split amongst the traditional mainstream parties against a single upstart opponent fueled by a recent referendum is a recipe for almost complete wipeout and will notice that UKIP's starting position in a Westminster context is not that far off where the SNP were in the 2010 Westminster election with Euro elections being their version of Holyrood polls where significantly greater success had been achieved. A lot of politically aware people across the UK are now at the bargaining stage of the five stages of separation basically. Once they realise it is futile and the result is going to have to be implimented whether they like it or not, we will be into depression and then acceptance. Edited June 26, 2016 by LongTimeLurker 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emiliano ZaBankie Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 We don't, and never have had, a presidential system of government in this country. The prime minister has always been chosen from and by the majority political party, or at least for the last hundred years or more. If Cameron had walked under a bus and the Tories had to select someone to replace him there would be no talk of another GE to give the new PM a mandate. I know, they covered that in Politicks at Glasgow yooni 😛, however this is not just a new PM though - it's a new cabinet presumably and they'll be pushing through policy that by definition wasn't in the manifesto last year. In this context 'mandate' also means giving Corbyn's Labour a complete shafting leaving them in further disarray. Better? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emiliano ZaBankie Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 We don't, and never have had, a presidential system of government in this country. The prime minister has always been chosen from and by the majority political party, or at least for the last hundred years or more. If Cameron had walked under a bus and the Tories had to select someone to replace him there would be no talk of another GE to give the new PM a mandate. I know, they covered that in Politicks at Glasgow yooni 😛, however this is not just a new PM though - it's a new cabinet presumably and they'll be pushing through policy that by definition wasn't in the manifesto last year. In this context 'mandate' also means giving Corbyn's Labour a complete shafting leaving them in further disarray. Better? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Everyone forgetting that there is precedent for the UK govt to ignore the results of a referendum majority. On that occassion the excuse was the issue was too big and the majority not decisive enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emiliano ZaBankie Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Everyone forgetting that there is precedent for the UK govt to ignore the results of a referendum majority. On that occassion the excuse was the issue was too big and the majority not decisive enough. Aye but the rules were set out before the vote at least. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Everyone forgetting that there is precedent for the UK govt to ignore the results of a referendum majority. On that occassion the excuse was the issue was too big and the majority not decisive enough. You will have to enlighten me. When was this referendum that was ignored rather than meeting the conditions of the referendum? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 I know, they covered that in Politicks at Glasgow yooni , however this is not just a new PM though - it's a new cabinet presumably and they'll be pushing through policy that by definition wasn't in the manifesto last year. In this context 'mandate' also means giving Corbyn's Labour a complete shafting leaving them in further disarray. Better? Not necessarily. The manifesto will apply to Cameron's successor. The referendum was in the manifesto. Michael Fallon made it clear that the manifesto and Queen's speech will determine the legislative programme. Corbyn's opponents in his own party are shafting him. They don't need the Tories as today's resignations have proved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Everyone forgetting that there is precedent for the UK govt to ignore the results of a referendum majority. On that occassion the excuse was the issue was too big and the majority not decisive enough. The 40% rule was inserted into the devolution legislation before the referendum based on an amendment from a backbencher called George Cunningham, so there is no parrallel with the current sitaution. Was once told that if Gordon Wilson of the SNP had kept speaking for 90 more seconds during the debate it would not have been added, but no idea if it's true or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 There is no way a GE victory gives you the mandate to reverse a single issue referendum vote. It does if you put it in your manifesto and get elected. But I don't believe that would be strategically the best thing to do - it would play right in to UKIP's hands. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 I totally agree. A single issue referendum trumps any other form of public decision making. Talk of a GE or a second referendum because people don't like the result is a nonsense. The only way you could have a second referendum is if there were an entirely new EU deal on the table - and with the Mexican stand-off that's going on just now I don't believe that is likely to happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Not necessarily. The manifesto will apply to Cameron's successor. The referendum was in the manifesto. That's what people don't seem to grasp. Brexit was inherently part of the Tory manifesto if the people (have spoken, the b*****ds! - Dick Tuck) voted to leave, so they are committed to invoking Article 50 at this point. The Tories would be annihilated by UKIP in England & Wales if they attempted a U-turn on that, because most of their voters backed Leave and turkeys with otherwise safe Tory seats don't vote for an early Christmas in career terms. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 I know, they covered that in Politicks at Glasgow yooni , however this is not just a new PM though - it's a new cabinet presumably and they'll be pushing through policy that by definition wasn't in the manifesto last year. In this context 'mandate' also means giving Corbyn's Labour a complete shafting leaving them in further disarray. Better? Who am I to argue with a student of politics? Still. I don't think it negates my point and the Tory policy was to hold a referendum on Europe with all rational people realising that policy would follow on from the result of that referendum. Whatever my views on the outcome, or on the xenophobia that played a large part in it, I think it would be wholly wrong to try to circumvent the result in any way. It would create a very dangerous precedent and the practical effects in driving more people towards UKIP would create even further conflict. It would be dishonest of me not to add that from a Scottish Indepence perspective I think it's a very good result, though even without that I would still argue that the result must be respected. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emiliano ZaBankie Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Who am I to argue with a student of politics? Still. I don't think it negates my point and the Tory policy was to hold a referendum on Europe with all rational people realising that policy would follow on from the result of that referendum. Whatever my views on the outcome, or on the xenophobia that played a large part in it, I think it would be wholly wrong to try to circumvent the result in any way. It would create a very dangerous precedent and the practical effects in driving more people towards UKIP would create even further conflict. It would be dishonest of me not to add that from a Scottish Indepence perspective I think it's a very good result, though even without that I would still argue that the result must be respected. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying it's right, wrong or should/could have been predicted but I don't get the impression it's about challenging the result of the referendum. Ironically most of the winners don't really seem to know what the result is either so can see the merit in an early GE. Would lead to 65% SNP result. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 That's what people don't seem to grasp. Brexit was inherently part of the Tory manifesto if the people (have spoken, the b*****ds! - Dick Tuck) voted to leave, so they are committed to invoking Article 50 at this point. The Tories would be annihilated by UKIP in England & Wales if they attempted a U-turn on that, because most of their voters backed Leave and turkeys with otherwise safe Tory seats don't vote for an early Christmas in career terms. The Tory party is as ripped apart as much as the Labour and Lib Dem parties are broken. The present Parliament is overwhelmingly against Brexit, so there will have to be a General Election. A united rational centrist party will have to be formed to contest it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.