[Harryg]

Originally Posted by JNW1

Maybe so but that still doesn't explain why Parliament as a whole chose to support the idea of holding a referendum (and by an overwhelming majority). Where were all these MP's saying the referendum bill was not in the national interest - and voting against it - back in 2015? The reality is the vast majority supported it and therefore share a collective responsibility for the consequences IMO.

Quite right but it was Cameron that was clutching at straws, did the labour party put this in their manifesto apparently they all wanted it, no they didn't but that forced the hand of the Cons and like everything else it backfired on them.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Harryg

Quite right but it was Cameron that was clutching at straws, did the labour party put this in their manifesto apparently they all wanted it, no they didn't but that forced the hand of the Cons and like everything else it backfired on them.

Cameron moved to hold the referendum in an effort to deal with the combined threat of UKIP plus Euro-sceptics in his own party. The opposition parties didn't have to support him if they thought a referendum on our EU membership wasn't going to be in the national interest but for the most part they did - therefore, they share some responsibility for what's happened since in my view.

Given the above your assertion it's all Cameron's fault is wrong IMO but, as we're going round in circles and clearly aren't going to agree, best let the matter drop!

[zofinger]

Lib Dems now officially remain party without necessarily another ref.?
Holding another ref is, IMO, bordering on un-democratic (not implementing the first, best of 3 etc…) but having a policy to remain regardless? If someone said this a few months after the referendum they’d be ridiculed. Delay after delay (including taking 1yr to invoke A50) has led to this and fair game to them, if they get elected with that policy then they have a mandate.
Swinson's also said if there was another ref and it again resulted in a leave result, she’d still campaign against implementing that decision. There’s a fine line of not giving up on your beliefs and representing the people who put you there.
If the UK doesn’t leave the EU I find hard to believe they’ll be anything other than significant damage (the ultimate lack of trust) to our electoral system/democracy. No need to vote again! Surely the Lib Dems don’t want that?

[JD6]

Originally Posted by zofinger

Lib Dems now officially remain party without necessarily another ref.?
Holding another ref is, IMO, bordering on un-democratic (not implementing the first, best of 3 etc…) but having a policy to remain regardless? If someone said this a few months after the referendum they’d be ridiculed. Delay after delay (including taking 1yr to invoke A50) has led to this and fair game to them, if they get elected with that policy then they have a mandate.
She’s also said if there was another ref and it again resulted in a leave result, she’d still campaign against implementing that decision. There’s a fine line of not giving up on your beliefs and representing the people who put you there.
If the UK doesn’t leave the EU I find hard to believe they’ll be anything other than significant damage (the ultimate lack of trust) to our electoral system/democracy. No need to vote again! Surely the Lib Dems don’t want that?

I wouldn't mind too much if UKIP / Brexit National Party types decide not to vote again

While the Lib Dems will never win a majority, and therefore get a proper mandate to revoke, they could hold the balance of power, along with the SNP.

[zofinger]

Originally Posted by JD6

I wouldn't mind too much if UKIP / Brexit National Party types decide not to vote again

While the Lib Dems will never win a majority, and therefore get a proper mandate to revoke, they could hold the balance of power, along with the SNP.

While it was tongue in cheek, I assume the moderate amoung us want all people to vote. Including the young, old and everyone in between. Not the Russian's though

A concern would be not to implement the referendum and very right wingers WILL definitely be out there voting!

[GBR1]

The Lib Dem’s are going after the 48% of the voters from the referendum, which as said with the SNP would probably get them into government.

They will get nowhere near that number but at least they are nailing their colours to the mast and saying something definitive.

I have always voted conservatives but won’t be this time around, they might have the best policies outside of Brexit (to be determined of course) but I can’t vote for the likes of Rees Mogg and BJ it goes against my moral compass!

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by JNW1

Cameron moved to hold the referendum in an effort to deal with the combined threat of UKIP plus Euro-sceptics in his own party. The opposition parties didn't have to support him if they thought a referendum on our EU membership wasn't going to be in the national interest but for the most part they did - therefore, they share some responsibility for what's happened since in my view.

Given the above your assertion it's all Cameron's fault is wrong IMO but, as we're going round in circles and clearly aren't going to agree, best let the matter drop!

Cameron had no choice, unlike Kinnock when he had to fight Militant the ERG were sat in parliament as MPs as a group of right wing extremists and had brought down Major and threatened to do the same to him, the only unforced mistake Cameron made was trusting Gove and Johnson who turned out to be a pair of power hungry quislings.

It's just such a pity that the wrong brother won the labour leader election in 2010 as we wouldn't have Corbyn and his new age Militants in charge of labour today giving us virtually no choice, which of course plays into the hands of the ERG and the no dealers.

The liberals don't have the strength in depth to win an election, too many seats are a straight fight between Con/Lab, a sensibly led Labour party with perhaps a pact with the liberal party would sweep the Tories off the table but we haven't got one.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Wills2

Cameron had no choice, unlike Kinnock when he had to fight Militant the ERG were sat in parliament as MPs as a group of right wing extremists and had brought down Major and threatened to do the same to him, the only unforced mistake Cameron made was trusting Gove and Johnson who turned out to be a pair of power hungry quislings.

Cameron carried out an election manifesto pledge and I agree he'd probably have been in trouble with some of his own MP's had he failed to do so. However, my point was opposition MP's were under no obligation to agree with him - had they felt a referendum on our continued membership of the EU was a bad idea they could have just voted against in an attempt to block it. The fact they didn't - and infact supported the referendum overwhelmingly - means they have to share some responsibility for what's followed IMO; they actively helped to trigger a process with little or no thought given to what would happen if they got the outcome they didn't want/expect.

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by JNW1

Cameron carried out an election manifesto pledge and I agree he'd probably have been in trouble with some of his own MP's had he failed to do so. However, my point was opposition MP's were under no obligation to agree with him - had they felt a referendum on our continued membership of the EU was a bad idea they could have just voted against in an attempt to block it. The fact they didn't - and infact supported the referendum overwhelmingly - means they have to share some responsibility for what's followed IMO; they actively helped to trigger a process with little or no thought given to what would happen if they got the outcome they didn't want/expect.

Sure, I'm not disagreeing with your point just adding some of my own colour to it.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by zofinger

Lib Dems now officially remain party without necessarily another ref.?
Holding another ref is, IMO, bordering on un-democratic (not implementing the first, best of 3 etc…) but having a policy to remain regardless? If someone said this a few months after the referendum they’d be ridiculed. Delay after delay (including taking 1yr to invoke A50) has led to this and fair game to them, if they get elected with that policy then they have a mandate.
Swinson's also said if there was another ref and it again resulted in a leave result, she’d still campaign against implementing that decision. There’s a fine line of not giving up on your beliefs and representing the people who put you there.
If the UK doesn’t leave the EU I find hard to believe they’ll be anything other than significant damage (the ultimate lack of trust) to our electoral system/democracy. No need to vote again! Surely the Lib Dems don’t want that?

I actually think the Lib Dems are being honest about their position and deserve some credit for that. If a party - or parties - have as part of their election manifesto a pledge to revoke A50 then in my view they've got a mandate to do exactly that if they win.

The only slight issue I have with this new position is they're also suggesting they'll still continue to campaign for a further referendum in the meantime and I don't see how that's credible when they're saying they'd only respect a Remain outcome. There doesn't seem much point advocating a referendum when you're ruling out in advance accepting one of the possible results......

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by JNW1

I actually think the Lib Dems are being honest about their position and deserve some credit for that. If a party - or parties - have as part of their election manifesto a pledge to revoke A50 then in my view they've got a mandate to do exactly that if they win.

The only slight issue I have with this new position is they're also suggesting they'll still continue to campaign for a further referendum in the meantime and I don't see how that's credible when they're saying they'd only respect a Remain outcome. There doesn't seem much point advocating a referendum when you're ruling out in advance accepting one of the possible results......

As a smaller party they can still influence others, as has been shown by recent defections, and try for a referendum.

The part about article 50 being revoked only matters if they win an election, which they won't.

I'm sure first choice for them would be revoking article 50, but as that is really a bit of a fantasy, a realistic next best would be another referendum so they have to push for that too in my opinion.

[GBR1]

I think if you are basing a GE on Brexit which is wrong in my opinion, however given this is what’s happening I think Lib Dem will do much better than people are giving them credit for on here.

They will pick up Conservative voters who want to remain and many labour that also want to remain plus those that don’t want to vote for Corbyn plus their existing base..

[zofinger]

Originally Posted by JNW1

I actually think the Lib Dems are being honest about their position and deserve some credit for that. If a party - or parties - have as part of their election manifesto a pledge to revoke A50 then in my view they've got a mandate to do exactly that if they win.

The only slight issue I have with this new position is they're also suggesting they'll still continue to campaign for a further referendum in the meantime and I don't see how that's credible when they're saying they'd only respect a Remain outcome. There doesn't seem much point advocating a referendum when you're ruling out in advance accepting one of the possible results......

They are absolutely being honest. The point is they've always wanted to remain and the passage of time (because the failure of the May government, EU sticking to their red lines, a parliament which doesn't want a deal or no deal etc...) means it's legitimate for them to campaign on that basis. The point is also about treading the fine line of not giving up what you believe vs representing people etc...as you say, why offer another ref when you've already said you won't give up on your beliefs and will campaign that remain is better. I struggle with the concept that time allows people to change their mind....fine in a business or personal life, but this is about c.35million people getting off their asses to vote (and it p!ssed down raining that day!) and then not implementing the outcome!!

[Bryans69]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

As a smaller party they can still influence others, as has been shown by recent defections, and try for a referendum.

The part about article 50 being revoked only matters if they win an election, which they won't.

I'm sure first choice for them would be revoking article 50, but as that is really a bit of a fantasy, a realistic next best would be another referendum so they have to push for that too in my opinion.

That's my thinking as well

[Bryans69]

Originally Posted by Wills2

The liberals don't have the strength in depth to win an election, too many seats are a straight fight between Con/Lab, a sensibly led Labour party with perhaps a pact with the liberal party would sweep the Tories off the table but we haven't got one.

Whilst I agree they won't win, I don't think too many seats area a straight fight between just Tory and Labour now. You've got the constituencies that never change, and anyone firmly Brexit will go Tory or Brexit party, but I think anywhere else could be fair game.

[TodmordenLad]

The UK pays a rebated EU membership fee of £280 million a week.
According to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, UK membership of the EU single market is worth 4% more in GDP = £1.9 billion a week.
EU membership means a UK net gain of over £1.6 billion a week.
Put that on a bus.
(courtesy of James Melville)

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

I'm sure first choice for them would be revoking article 50, but as that is really a bit of a fantasy, a realistic next best would be another referendum so they have to push for that too in my opinion.

My point about a further referendum is I don't see it being credible to offer one unless you're prepared to honour the result whatever the outcome. Saying in advance you're only prepared to accept one result implies you'll just continue to draw the process out until the electorate eventually gives you the answer you want and that's not a proper way to behave IMO; you might expect that from a one issue politician like Nigel Farage but not from a mainstream political party. If you're not prepared to honour all of the possible outcomes you shouldn't hold the referendum IMO....

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by JNW1

My point about a further referendum is I don't see it being credible to offer one unless you're prepared to honour the result whatever the outcome. Saying in advance you're only prepared to accept one result implies you'll just continue to draw the process out until the electorate eventually gives you the answer you want and that's not a proper way to behave IMO; you might expect that from a one issue politician like Nigel Farage but not from a mainstream political party. If you're not prepared to honour all of the possible outcomes you shouldn't hold the referendum IMO....

Have they said that? I thought that they had said if they win an election, they will revoke A50, and of they are holding the balance of power they will push for a second referendum where they will support remain, but I didnt see them say they would only support one if remain was guaranteed to win...

They have been very clear what mandate they are standing on. Can we expect the same from the big 2 now....?

[zofinger]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

Have they said that? I thought that they had said if they win an election, they will revoke A50, and of they are holding the balance of power they will push for a second referendum where they will support remain, but I didnt see them say they would only support one if remain was guaranteed to win...

They have been very clear what mandate they are standing on. Can we expect the same from the big 2 now....?

Lib Dems have said, as I understand it, is if there was another ref (whether they hold the balance of power or are indeed the executive) they would continue to campaign against leaving if the result of said vote was another leave one. That's not democratic in my view.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by zofinger

Lib Dems have said, as I understand it, is if there was another ref (whether they hold the balance of power or are indeed the executive) they would continue to campaign against leaving if the result of said vote was another leave one. That's not democratic in my view.

If they said they will ignore the referendum and block Brexit, that would be undemocratic, but to say they will continue to campaign against it is doing what their members have asked them to do - and therefore VERY democratic....

[zofinger]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

If they said they will ignore the referendum and block Brexit, that would be undemocratic, but to say they will continue to campaign against it is doing what their members have asked them to do - and therefore VERY democratic....

That's right, they've said they would continue to campaign against Brexit AFTER another vote if the result was again Leave. Just as they are now (except 3yrs has elapsed since the vote). They believe the UK should not leave, period.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...t-brexit-even/

As I said, undemocratic IMO.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by zofinger

That's right, they've said they would continue to campaign against Brexit AFTER another vote if the result was again Leave. Just as they are now (except 3yrs has elapsed since the vote). They believe the UK should not leave, period.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...t-brexit-even/

As I said, undemocratic IMO.

And IMO it isnt, as they are not blocking the will of the people, they are just saying they think the people are wrong (which, lets be honest, they often are...)

Trying to convince the electorate around to your manifesto and way of thinking is an essential part of democracy...