Should we have another referendum?

[bb21]

In a hypothetical game, if it turns out the ref had been "bought" and therefore cheated, would the team have the right to a replay?

They will have automatic byes to the next round, or awarded the victory and associated points.

 

[Howardh]

They will have automatic byes to the next round, or awarded the victory and associated points.

What if the ref was OK, but BOTH teams cheated?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Clearly we should keep holding referenda until the establishment gets the result that it wants. That being the case, why hold the first referendum.

Better for simple people like me to just do what I am told by my betters as I'm clearly incapable of deciding anything for myself.

As an aside, having voted to leave, the devil hasn't (yet) been round to eat my babies or do unspeakable things to elderly family members.

Perhaps if either side had actually put forward some evidenced facts and solid proposals rather than slinging mud?

 

[Johnuk123]

So 16 year olds should contribute to society (if working) but not given a say on how it's run?

What makes 21 a better cut-off than 18?

More life experience for a start, paying tax and getting married at 16 does not make you particularly more intelligent.

 

[Flying Snail]

What if the ref was OK, but BOTH teams cheated?

Then the players would have been sent off. Sadly we allow elected representatives and candidates to cheat, lie, spread fear and hated with impunity. Act the way many of them did on a football field and you would be banned and fined.

 

[EM2]

More life experience for a start, paying tax and getting married at 16 does not make you particularly more intelligent.

Neither does being 21! Intelligence has very little to do with being older.
Exhibit A - Joey Essex (aged 25).

 

[w0033944]

No for the EU (and I say this as a Remain voter).
If people who voted Leave did not fully (or even partly) understand the consequences of leaving the EU, well they've learned a very hard lesson.

Yes for Scotland (although I have no vote).

Same here.

 

[Johnuk123]

Neither does being 21! Intelligence has very little to do with being older.
Exhibit A - Joey Essex (aged 25).

I agree that there are notable exceptions.

 

[Harbornite]

More life experience for a start, paying tax and getting married at 16 does not make you particularly more intelligent.

16-21 year olds still deserve a say in how thecountry is run. You have a strange view of the world and you accused me of this when I said in a tongue-in-cheek way that some people should not be allowed to vote. You are saying the same thing, except with stereotyping about the intelligence of younger citizens. There isn't always a direct link between intelligence and age as proven by the results of this referendum.

 

[bb21]

Neither does being 21! Intelligence has very little to do with being older.
Exhibit A - Joey Essex (aged 25).

... or even many of those with supposedly bags of life experience and aged 40, 50, 60 or even above.

Perhaps no one should be given a vote and we should just be ruled by a dictatorship, or that people should pass an IQ test in advance of being given a vote. I guess most people can see where this is all going.

Not the first time supposed wiser elders look down on the younger generation, and won't be the last time.

 

[Howardh]

... or even many of those with supposedly bags of life experience and aged 40, 50, 60 or even above.

Perhaps no one should be given a vote and we should just be ruled by a dictatorship, or that people should pass an IQ test in advance of being given a vote. I guess most people can see where this is all going.

Not the first time supposed wiser elders look down on the younger generation, and won't be the last time.

That idea wins hands-down

EDIT; NOT an IQ test...but a basic test on modern politics.

 

[Flying Snail]

More life experience for a start, paying tax and getting married at 16 does not make you particularly more intelligent.

Nor does a lifetime of benefit scrounging, nor indeed a lifetime of prestigious employment.

Intelligence is mostly down to genetics, dumb remains dumb, nothing will change that.

Ignorance on the other hand is down to education and these days there is little excuse for ignorance, the facts to inform oneself of at least the basics of any political argument are readily available to practically everyone in a developed country such as Britain.

It is the thick and ignorant that I would rather not see at polling stations regardless of age, if a 16 year old has enough interest to turn up at one then chances are they are likely to have informed themselves at least a little bit.

 

[Harbornite]

... or even many of those with supposedly bags of life experience and aged 40, 50, 60 or even above.

or that people should pass an IQ test in advance of being given a vote. I guess most people can see where this is all going.

This might actually be a good thing for this country!

 

[Dave1987]

Friday I would definitely have said no to this but seeing how many people voted leave as a 'protest' vote but actually wanted us to remain and are now scared by their own stupidity then I feel we do need another. This decision is just too big and it's not like there will be another in 5 yrs time.

 

[ExRes]

There isn't always a direct link between intelligence and age as proven by the results of this referendum.

An interesting point this, just who is supplying 'data' to support age group voting?, I don't seem to remember anything on my voting paper asking me to supply my date of birth

I don't suppose this 'data' is being supplied by pollsters is it?, ask 100 people and 'prove' that everyone aged between 55 and 65 voted Leave by any chance?

 

[Railops]

This referendum should have been done differently. A side should only have won if they had a majority of more than 10%. Anything less than that, like leave winning by less than 2%, should spark a second referendum.

That's fair enough so why didn't all the snowflakes who are the ones voting for the childish second referendum get that petition up months ago.
BEFORE WE HAD IT (quite important that is)

There was never any chance of this referendum being set up in that fashion because all the polls said Remain would win somewhere in the 50's so it would never be done that way. If the polls had all given Remain a massive chance of winning it probably would have had a minimum win percentage

If you skim the internet today half of Britain has gone into an incredible immature massive sulk just because they lost.

Having second votes because the first was lost is the sort of thing you would expect in Zimbabwe or Afghanistan, thankfully this country does organise things in a democratic fashion.

 

[Antman]

That's fair enough so why didn't all the snowflakes who are the ones voting for the childish second referendum get that petition up months ago.
BEFORE WE HAD IT (quite important that is)

There was never any chance of this referendum being set up in that fashion because all the polls said Remain would win somewhere in the 50's so it would never be done that way. If the polls had all given Remain a massive chance of winning it probably would have had a minimum win percentage

If you skim the internet today half of Britain has gone into an incredible immature massive sulk just because they lost.

Having second votes because the first was lost is the sort of thing you would expect in Zimbabwe or Afghanistan, thankfully this country does organise things in a democratic fashion.

Very well summed up and if the result had gone the other way and Brexit demanded a 'rematch' you can imagine what the response would be from the very same people on here.

 

[Flying Snail]

I am of the same opinion, with one exception.

The only situation I can advocate a second EU referendum is as a result of (pre-)article 50 negotiations, asking "do you want to stay or take this alternative settlement". Dafydd Wigley has advocated this today. (BBC Cymru article in Welsh)

Well that is what SHOULD have happened for this referendum, a framework for UK-Europe relations ought to have been presented to the public so they were voting for/against something solid rather than a the vague popularity contest with a massive ? as an option.

Of course if that had happened then a majority of the bull**** spouted in the previous months would have been easily brushed aside because there would have been some facts to present instead.

 

[EM2]

If you skim the internet today half of Britain has gone into an incredible immature massive sulk just because they lost.

Except for the ones who thought they were registering a Leave 'protest vote' and have found out what their vote actually means for their future.

 

[Antman]

Nor does a lifetime of benefit scrounging, nor indeed a lifetime of prestigious employment.

Intelligence is mostly down to genetics, dumb remains dumb, nothing will change that.

Ignorance on the other hand is down to education and these days there is little excuse for ignorance, the facts to inform oneself of at least the basics of any political argument are readily available to practically everyone in a developed country such as Britain.

It is the thick and ignorant that I would rather not see at polling stations regardless of age, if a 16 year old has enough interest to turn up at one then chances are they are likely to have informed themselves at least a little bit.

Well that's how a democracy works, everybody above the required age gets a vote.

 

[krus_aragon]

Clearly we should keep holding referenda until the establishment gets the result that it wants. That being the case, why hold the first referendum.

Do bear in mind that any establishment wouldn't hold any referendum if it didn't feel reasonably confident it was going to get the result it wanted.

 

[Harbornite]

Well that's how a democracy works, everybody above the required age gets a vote.

Did you miss the point of the discussion? We were discussing what the voting age should be, I think it should be lowered to 16.

 

[Antman]

Except for the ones who thought they were registering a Leave 'protest vote' and have found out what their vote actually means for their future.

But I've never heard any leave voters actually claim that they have been deceived but keep clutching at those straws.

 

[krus_aragon]

More life experience for a start, paying tax and getting married at 16 does not make you particularly more intelligent.

Quoth the American Colonists: "No taxation without representation".

 

[Antman]

Did you miss the point of the discussion? We were discussing what the voting age should be, I think it should be lowered to 16.

Yes and that's a fair point, my comments were more aimed at the self righteousness being portrayed.

 

[Johnuk123]

Except for the ones who thought they were registering a Leave 'protest vote' and have found out what their vote actually means for their future.

Facebook can give you a very distorted view of the world.

 

[krus_aragon]

Well that is what SHOULD have happened for this referendum, a framework for UK-Europe relations ought to have been presented to the public so they were voting for/against something solid rather than a the vague popularity contest with a massive ? as an option.

Cameron went at it as a replay of the 1974 referendum. Go to the continent, renegotiate for a better deal, then say "take it or leave it". Oops.

 

[EM2]

But I've never heard any leave voters actually claim that they have been deceived but keep clutching at those straws.

Facebook can give you a very distorted view of the world.

Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...extraordinary-moment-brexit-voter-changes-he/
People.com - http://www.people.com/article/brexit-voters-regret-uk-leave-eu
Channel 7 Australia - https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/3191700...unning-backflip-over-referendum-result/#page1
Independent - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...hought-uk-stay-in-eu-remain-win-a7102516.html

 

[Domh245]

I'm against referendums on principle, we pay MPs good money to make those decisions. Referendums are like having a dog and barking yourself.

Hear hear. Referendums, especially on things as important and complex as the EU, should be decided on by those who have the full picture, and not by the public who seem to be largely unaware of all sides of the argument and vote on one or two issues. It seems to be akin to passing sentence during a trial having only heard from one of the sides.

If a referendum is inevitable, then for matters like the EU which have far reaching implications, a supermajority (ie winner has more than 66.6% of votes) should be required. A simple majority is likely to leave the country split straight down the middle (which is what has happened). A result less than a supermajority should then force it into a re-run (with or without renegotiation of terms) or to be decided upon by elected representatives (like MPs)

 

[grah2702]

So we have a second referendum and Remain win 52/48 what happens then ?

The leave complain and we have a third vote.
We live in a democracy a section of society cannot dump it just because they dont like the outcome of a vote.