y u h8 democracy bro? 
I donât know the political viability of this but a further referendum should be called when the final terms of the Brexit deal are known. The whole notion of leaving is a farce imo but especially when at the time of deciding remain/leave we had no clue as to what kind of trade agreements, immigration laws etc. we would be left with.
Once we do know the full economic and sociopolitical impact, then it makes complete sense for the people to be allowed to decide whether they still want it.
2 Likes
Hypothetically speaking what then happens when the âfinal termsâ get rejected in a referendum because theyâre so complex, the consequences are not understood in the slightest and the terms are so far reaching everybody disagrees with a small sound bite that they themselves understand of them?
If you have a yes/no referendum on the final terms and the outcome is no? Where do you even go from there? There will be millions of clauses and treaties within the final deal you canât unpick them for a referendum. Weâd be stuck in a loop of wanting to leave the EU but not agreeing on the final terms.
How do you have a debate about the nitty gritty details of the most boring complex far reaching legal issues the world has seen? Itâs pointless to even pretend that whatever the outcome it would be based on informed decisions.
Of the 100s of key issues that will make up the final agreement how do the government go back and renegotiate armed with a simple no?
1 Like
When itâs based on lies and deceit it is not democracy.
Or when possible fraud happens.
Also dumbasses that voted leave now want exemptions for them to continue with EU subsidies and access to single markets when they voted to stop that.
3 Likes
Why do we debate any complex issues then? Of course there would need to be an exercise to simplify and publicise the key elements of the final terms, but that is the same with any political or economic issue. The majority of the UK public does not understand the relationship between unemployment, interest rates, inflation etc? Does that mean people donât vote on these issues when it comes to a general election? Of course they do and thatâs just democracy.
The referendum would be - âYes - we accept this deal as itâs the only deal weâre going to getâ or âNo - weâll remain on the same terms weâre currently onâ. Iâm more pointing out the lunacy of voting to leave without understanding what that actually looks like in reality. When it is known and the headline elements are out in the public domain, shouldnât people be entitled to look at that again and think âyou know what, thatâs not what I thought leaving was going to achieveâ. It shouldnât have the option of renegotiating, just a straight choice between leave and remain.
This is such a farce 
Never have I seen such a massive decision made certain, with such little preparation.
3 Likes
A referendum which is simply this is the deal or we remain would never ever be accepted though. A no vote in that referendum would be viewed as a failure of that particular government and not of Brexit. A no vote in that scenario would simply lead to the PM getting the sack another general election and âWe go againâ.
The same way having a referendum on leaving in the first place was deeply flawed so would be a referendum on the final terms.
Still cant believe this went to a public vote. The complexities of such a decision should have never been left to the moronic public. Demoracy or not.
1 Like
They knew that most of the public are not very politically savvy and rely on patriotic feelings of idiots of a bygone era that they never saw
1 Like
I mean I wouldnât really call 52% of the electorate idiots. I just think referendas donât fit with a Westminster style of government. We have a governement that it formed primarily of people that donât want to leave the EU, and weâre relying on a non-binary vote to act as some sort of mandate.
@Gunnerpr youâre very vocal when it comes to slating Labour for their position on Brexit (but less so the Tories, perhaps understandably), I would appreciate it if you offered your opinion on my post earlier.
Not because I assume that I am correct and because I want to beef about it, but because you are so critical of Labour, so Iâd like to know if what I posted has any merit or not, because I am admittedly quite a partisan fellow.
Voting down that particular amendment is fine because simply put it isnât very good. What annoys me is it has to come from the back benches muddling stuff through to oppose a hard Brexit and there isnât a collective push by labour to really ensure we donât just end up with a Tory fuck up. Essentially I donât see opposition I see Corbyn and McDonnell seemingly happy with where the Torres are leading Brexit.
Whatâs the point in being critical with the tories when we know they donât stand for the everyday layman, we know most would be happy with a no deal, the tories are just being tories. Albeit particularly stupid ones.
Maybe I am misinformed though and the labour leadership really do want single market access and customs union
They will need all the fortune in the world to sell that one to voters.
ÂŁ50bn isnât really that much. Iâm surprised it isnât more.
1 Like
In 2016 the UK government paid ÂŁ13.1 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be ÂŁ4.5 billion. So the UKâs ânet contributionâ was estimated at about ÂŁ8.6 billion.
âŹ50bn is like 5 years contributions which is one of the main reasons people want to leave. Unless they can publish some legit maths to explain it then thereâs no way people in this country are going to be happy with that.
Thatâs how contracts and binding unions work though.
You canât just tell O2 youâre dumping their contract and then not expect to have to pay off the rest of it.
ÂŁ50bn is a drop of water if youâre looking at paying ÂŁ8bn a year for perpetuity. ÂŁ50bn is the cost of dropping those annual payments, and itâs coming at the low price of about 6 years of payments.
The EU relies and has relied on the UK for contributions to the EU budget and now all of that is needing to be reworked and all of a sudden a large chunk of money that the EU depended on wonât be coming in anymore. Thatâs how alimony/divorce payments work as well because now all of a sudden one party doesnât have a significant portion of income coming in any more.
People are fucking idiots if they thought they could get away with not having to pay anything to leave the EU, and Iâm surprised that itâs not a whole lot more than ÂŁ50bn to be honest.
In any case, the EU is the UK closest and biggest exporter/importer. They hold an awful lot of cards here, and if they want their pound of flesh before they continue working out a deal, theyâll get it.
2 Likes
Well yeah, there are clearly a lot of idiots out there haha
1 Like
Youâre right. ÂŁ5Obn is actually not that much when you consider what weâre paying and the years itâll be spread over (probably a few decades). Besides, if it does lead us onto to formalising a free trade deal it will be money well spent.
I know you wasnât directing it to me, but I meant that the media would probably go mad when reporting the expecting figure. Surpsignly though the reaction has been muted from the media and Conservative party members, which is good I guess.
1 Like
Itâs supposedly only equivalent to something like 6 years worth of payments so I doubt itâll be paid over the course of a few decades.
Edit: my bad @will24, just seen that it literally is the plan to pay it over decades. Which is great, cos that means all the old Brexiteers will die and itâll be the young (mostly Remainers) paying for it.
I do think it is quite a lot of money really considering that we are getting fuck all in exchange, but I do know what you mean 