UKIP

[Granny Danger]

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

[strichener]

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.

[welshbairn]

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.

[Jacksgranda]

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

[Granny Danger]

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.

[CowdenConvert]

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.

[LongTimeLurker]

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

[Emiliano ZaBankie]

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?

[Emiliano ZaBankie]

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?

[git-intae-thum]

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.

[Emiliano ZaBankie]

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.

[strichener]

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?

[Bishop Briggs]

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.

[LongTimeLurker]

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.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

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.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

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.

[LongTimeLurker]

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.

[Granny Danger]

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.

[Emiliano ZaBankie]

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.

[welshbairn]

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.