Bit far fetched. Nobody is predicting that Brexit will be a roaring success, not even this Tory government.
I think it would be a tragedy. But I can’t blame them.
Stupid question but …
What would the criteria be for voting in the ref
An address in Scotland ?
If you’re English living in Scotland can you vote ?
Aren’t we all British on our passports?
Anybody resident in Scotland was able to vote in the last referendum. The Scottish diaspora was not eligible.
Thanks for that.
Anyone thinking that Sturgeon is a good idea needs their head read.
Not at all. I’m suggesting that there should be forethought and hindsight before an irreversible (for generations) change. It’s one of the main takes from Brexit for me. I certainly don’t think that a Tory Westminster government should run that, that’s an imbecilic misunderstanding of what I said.
That I can’t argue with but it is not what you wrote. You wrote that there should be a requirement for a super majority followed by a confirmatory referendum on the terms.
Which in no way relates to any of the points you made!
I agree BTW Adam, a super-majority should be the minimum requirement and a confirmatory vote once the withdrawal and future relationship is understood.
The requirement for a super majority effectively rigs the election at a time when the polls suggest the country is pretty much evenly split. I’d have thought that was obvious.
One lesson from Brexit is to never hold an FPP referendum. I can only see 5 years of Tory Govt, a Brexit recession and the inevitable shit deal with the USA and sell of of the NHS firming up support to leave north of the border in Britain and Ireland.
EDIT: The demographics are also crucially weighted in favour of a 5-10 year delay.
I get the point but how would you respond to this scenario:
Its 2024 and a Labour government with a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum to rejoin the EU has been returned with a small majority. Should a super majority be required? Is it fair to insist a second referendum be held on more onerous terms than the first?
A massive double take, a suspicious look at whatever bottle I have been drinking and then howls of laughter followed by waking up.
The point you’re missing is that implicit in our position is that if the country is evenly split, you don’t make a huge change. That’s not rigging the vote, it’s sensible caution.
I’m not missing the point. As a remainer in the EU referendum I get it. However, you’re not making the case as to why a simple democratic majority is insufficient when it suffices for literally everything else in our democracy.
I think there’s a good argument for a super majority, yes.
My issue is not with abstruse trade and economic issues, but with losing rights and control. In Brexit, we have lost some important individual rights; I feel that these have been taken from me by a choice made by others. This is what a super majority should cover.
If we look to rejoin the EU, we need to look at what will be lost. There is a lot of sovereignty that is ceded to the EU when you join. I am uncomfortable with doing that on a simple majority, even if it is something that I would vote for.
Dunno. I’ll be similarly mystified if the Alliance and the SDLP take all the seats in Stormont and NI seats in Westminister from the DUP and Shinners. It is just as (un)likely.
Applying my prospective to Scottish independence, there is potentially a lot to lose by being an independent country; this could include the right to move to rUK, to take an extreme case, or to study there. This loss is so dramatic in potential scale that it should not be possible for a simple majority to impose their will, especially as it restricts the potential rights of those that cannot yet vote.
Why should the majority be denied by a minority? It is fundamentally undemocratic.
Because you need to protect rights that are there. Taking away rights should be hard.