Should there be a second referendum?

" If people want to leave - they will vote so. "

It's not the voting that counts but what the Parliament decides thereafter, and they have ALREADY demonstrated that in the main they have dismissed peoples' majority vote and desire to leave.

The fear mongerers in Parliament are refusing to review other economic options and analyses that suggest no deal could be accommodated without major economic hardship if done correctly, and appear intent on applying influence within the parliament and the media in order to get their way ....

Even if there is another vote, the Parliamentarians wont let a leave vote pass through parliament as they are majority remainers and will find some other means of stopping Brexit. Basically our own parliamentarians appear to be holding us all to ransom given the reality that the EU appear unwilling to accommodate a good deal for the UK.

The sooner the EU's intransigent stance is recognised by parliamentarians the better. Basically so long as this EU intransigence continues we have little option but to review the alternative economic analysis in detail and plan for a well organised no deal strategy.This alternative economic analysis has already been thought through in detail and to date has proved more realistic than the current analysis, so what is holding back trust in this alternative economic analysis and strategy, pray tell?

Review and plan for this IN DETAIL.... and then see how the EU react,i.e.  if they would be willing to accommodate a deal more acceptable to all, as at present they are calling our bluff.

Mickyfinn/pjck

Considering there are 2 sides to a referendum yes/no or in/out, who should decide how many referendums there should be? Perhaps the bingo ball machine?

I don't accept the EU is being intransigent. May struck a deal but now wants further concessions to get the right wing nationalists and the DUP on board.  A minority of remainers in the Tory party want a second referendum the rest the deal in its entirety. Juncker was right when he described the process as 'nebulous' meaning foggy.

The EU 27 seek a clear UK mandate from which they may make adjustments but they need to be sure it will get approved. They are not going to risk a rejection by the Commons. It's purely a political stare down and they ain't going to blink first.

Goldman Sacs expect a deal on the last day of the third week in January. They are not often wrong.  I still think the odds are less for a deal than a second refy

So no answer mickyfinn, are you just another politician who just rabbits on regardless?

Mickeyfinn,

Your reference to Goldman Sachs is interesting considering they hug parliaments close...... now I wonder if they too are lobbying hard for no brexit given their previous close involvement with the structure of the EU or even profiteering off the back of Brexit wobbles?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/15/european-commission-rebuked-jose-manuel-barroso-ex-chiefs-goldman-sachs-job

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/feb/18/greece-goldman-sachs-debt-derivatives

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-26/goldman-is-said-to-weigh-1-4-billion-sale-of-new-european-hq

"A sale and leaseback would mean “Goldman can extract the capital now in case there is a Brexit wobble or interest rate rise, which expands yields,” Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Sue Munden said. “They can also put the capital to work on core operations while still ensuring they have a prestigious London headquarters.”

The exact value of the building will largely be determined by the rent Goldman agrees to pay, the people said. If the bank paid a rent of about 70 pounds a square foot -- the going rate for new offices in the City of London district -- the building would be worth about 1.5 billion pounds assuming a yield of 4 percent, the people said."

https://corporateeurope.org/revolving-doors/2016/08/barroso-gold-plated-revolving-door

"In practically all important lobby battles since the financial crisis, Goldman Sachs has worked with European allies, and friends in the financial sector, to stop ambitious proposals to rein in the power of the financial sector. As just a few examples:

• When the EU started looking at rules (via the review of the so-called Markets in Financial Instruments Directive and rules for credit default swaps) for some of the toxic financial instruments that had caused the financial crisis, Goldman Sachs claimed “the case has not yet been made for additional regulation”. It even warned Commission officials against “possible over regulation”.
• When the Commission started considering stronger rules for banks to ensure financial stability, Goldman Sachs lobbied against practically every new step suggested.
• While the investment bank acknowledged in 2009 that a massive inflow of speculative money into commodities, including food, “has boosted prices” sparking hunger in many parts of the world in 2008, Goldman Sachs still went on to fight new rules in the European Union (position limits), that were supposed to deal with the problem.
• Goldman Sachs was also active in the industry-led campaign against the introduction of a Financial Transactions Tax. In an attempt to alarm the financial sector about the proclaimed horrific tax burden ahead of the introduction of the tax, Goldman Sachs said it would amount to €170 billion, according to an article in its research newsletter titled "Financial Transaction Tax: how severe?". This was a figure far higher than the Commission's estimate of €34 billion annually.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/what-price-the-new-democracy-goldman-sachs-conquers-europe-6264091.html

So many questions associated with Banks such as Goldman Sachs background lobbying that impacts citizens bests interests and the failure of the Commission to act....., no?

So the hypocrisy that arises from the Commissions' "supposed protection" of citizens interests and the blind eyes turned to highly questionable hidden agendas just beggars belief when you look at the wider picture ....

p.s. The inference of right wing nationalists appears misplaced when generalising about Brexit as there are all too many who certainly do not align themselves with any extreme of this nature, but are genuinely disillusioned with the EU's current structure, the hypocrisy and failures to realistically assess the impacts that have arisen from their decision making and lack of flexibility during this last decade....

Yup that's their raison d'être ads. So follow the money if you want to know where things are likely to turn out in a world of clueless politicians. I don't say it's right I'm just being realistic.

Of course there are choices to be made but please dont write off alternative economic analyses and strategies in the interim that free the UK from the clutches of a union that sadly appears to be in denial and is in dire need of reform if cohesion is to be safeguarded.

Personally I think another Referendum would be a impossible task to have....you would have the IN crowd with 545 good reasons to  stay in ...and then you would have the OUT crowd with 545 good reasons why we should leave...the truth is that its far to complex a situation for the man in the street to understand ...the political establishment caused all this by not listening to the people that elected them and called them bigot's and the likes...the people have spoken in the form of a Democratic vote and the politicians are still not listening.

It think the opposite. The British public have been bombarded with facts and propaganda about Brexit ever since the vote. Its everywhere. People are far more informed now than in 2016. Some have changed their minds, most I believe have not, if this forum is an example of public opinion. Teresa May was wrong to say as long as she was prime minister a second vote would not be held. A stupid thing to do. She did it before about a general election then back tracked. She really is a very poor head of government and national leader.

How can it ever be undemocratic to have another democratic vote? That makes no sense to me. Was the first vote undemocratic and should this decision be left to parliament? it seems the only way out of the impasse to ask the people agin what they want for the future of Britain..

Mickyfinn you must be a prime candidate for the Marr show. Never answer a question but rabbit on.

Considering there are 2 sides to a referendum yes/no or in/out, who should decide how many referendums there should be? Perhaps the bingo ball machine?

Mickyfinn ...the doom and gloom  propaganda is coming from the remain camp from people like yourself... The only time they shut up is when they are asked about uncontrollable migration from the EU with no criminal back ground checks /the 390,000 EU citizens that live and claim the DSS (Dole) in the UK/ the lack of council houses/the over loaded NHS the list is never ending ...if you can sort it out then I will vote in.

There has never been any uncontrollable migration from the EU but there has always been uncontrollable sticky mattress disease from the Brits. Blame anyone Vera Duckworth.

How about background checks of immigrants from non-EU countries? Especially as non-EU immigration is higher in the UK. 

Lets not make snide personal comments please. I respect your views please do likewise.  The fact is if another referendum majority votes remain it cancels the leave vote and the stutus quo is resumed as if Cameron's recklessness had never happen.  

That may leave decent politicians to sort out Windtalkers domestic concerns which have little relationship to the EU. Migration will continue in or out. It's a necessary phenomenon of modern life. The housing shortage is due to decades of under investment in  social housing and private values going through the roof. Why is it a problen for you that EU citizens claim benefits? They will still have that entitlement after Brexit and probably because they have contributed whilst in work. Remember UK citizens who contribute in Europe enjoy equal privilege.

Mickyfinn

i seem to remember we have been here before.

Just a reminder that it was not Cameron’s folly, he was listening to the electorate at an election 40% who voted Tory and 14% who voted UKIP, with a declining vote for the most EU favourable party the Lib Dem’s.

The country was telling him something and he delivered, good to his word, he just got his view of the outcome wrong as his negotiations with the EU changed little..

The country voted OUT in great numbers, they expected the politicians to work out how to get after 40 years entanglement.

Ads has produced many economic comments and forecasts on a NO deal exit whichbsuggest the Treasury, Bank of England and the IMF are all wrong again, after all the establishment did a great job of forecasting 2007 crash.

I watched the Big Short on TV again last night and a small number of financial experts actually read the the reason for the crash successfully, whilst the Federal Reserve the banks and the regulators stood by as they has no reason to think they were wrong.

The 56 year old ...one legged roofer from Romania that was on TV is still on the dole ....he had  a job as a roofer but it only lasted one week and then they sacked him ...for turning up for work legless... he is now fighting his case for unfair dismissal with help from our fantastic legal aid system.

So the hypocrisy that arises from the Commissions' "supposed protection" of citizens interests and the blind eyes turned to highly questionable hidden agendas just beggars belief when you look at the wider picture ....

p.s. The inference of right wing nationalists appears misplaced when generalising about Brexit as there are all too many who certainly do not align themselves with any extreme of this nature, but are genuinely disillusioned with the EU's current structure, the hypocrisy and failures to realistically assess the impacts that have arisen from their decision making and lack of flexibility during this last decade..............”

One of the many reasons why Macron has gone from Messiah to Devil in a short time.

There is hardly a political leader in Europe with the support of a majority of the electorate, it’s just that the Brits have seen through the EU s inefficiencies quicker than others.

One thing about all this is if Mrs May did cave in and have a second referendum and the vote went to stay in,  would the EU screw us, it could due to Mrs Mays inability to fully govern and knowing full well that she wouldn't couldn't stand up to the EU, then perhaps the possibly of having a general election might arise, who would we get then?

I honestly believe if a second one came about the vote would be to stay in the EU,  thanks to all the negative reports, scary reports and of course the couple of years of having it drummed into us 24/7. 

Hugh-man wrote: There is hardly a political leader in Europe with the support of a majority of the electorate, it’s just that the Brits have seen through the EU s inefficiencies quicker than others.

I agree the EU needs reforms. Many EU political leaders are currently campaigning for just that. That is one of the reasons it is so important in my view for the UK to remain a member. It can influence positive change. Outside the block Britain is impotent.

In 2019 everything will change. Juncker will be gone and new European elections will take to replace the current parliament. Most current EU leaders will be replaced by a new generation, whom I believe are conscious for the need of change.

Britain will have no influence on anything after Brexit. No Commissioners or representatives in the parliament. That is a highly undesirable political situation for both the UK and the future direction of Europe.

On the other hand Britain’s departure may turn out to be one of the best things that has ever happened to the European Union. We have recently seen EU leaders more united than at any other time in it's history. Britain was always the petulant member seeking opt outs for this and that and slowing progress. Now with Brexit the EU can forge ahead without Britain's restraining influence. Every cloud and all that.

But the voters knew all that when they had their democratic vote. You lost, please accept it and move on.