Jim,
If you invent a hole I'm not sure how it is reasonable to expect other people to explain how they would fill it, when they don't believe it exists, or will ever exist.
Anyway one of MY favourite things at the moment is the assertion that a second referendum would be undemocratic. For sure everyone was told this would be their one and only chance to vote on the issue, but so were Scots on independence and I can't see what's wrong with another vote up there, when enough people want one.
NOW, imagine a future in which relations with Russia decline alarmingly. Demands for military action are dividing the country and tearing the Government of the day apart. Thinking that they would nip the whole thing in the bud and unite their own party, the Government decide to offer a referendum on the issue, certain that the nation would NEVER vote for WAR ..........
Unfortunately during the campaign a prominent Russian businessman is found dead in mysterious circumstances at his home in Bury St Edmunds. Within days neighbours are collapsing at work, a school closes as children fall ill, the Mayor collapses during an emergency council meeting. Within days the entire town empties as refugees are pictured boarding buses with all their belongings and pets .......... THE COUNTRY VOTES FOR WAR.
Immediately military voices are raised in panic. We'll be slaughtered. We have neither the personnel, nor the arsenal to match Russia, we are million miles from ready, we need shed-loads of money spending now or even yesterday. Following the democratic will of the people the Government begins to pump its every resource into readying the country for the war it is preparing to declare. All finance is diverted to the war effort. Hospitals run short of drugs and wards close, care homes are closed and ageing relatives returned to unwilling families. The school leaving age is cut to 14 to reduce the education budget. Oxford, Cambridge and St Andrews are the only universities which remain open. Benefit payments are reduced by 85%. Major projects like HS2 and Crossrail are abandoned and the money diverted. The channel tunnel is closed. Criminals are released to enlist and dissidents take their place in prison. Those over 18, not doing work of national importance, begin to be conscripted. Parliament is suspended. The Government declares itself a national government, takes over the BBC and closes all other media outlets and closes down much of the internet. Countries which are long-standing allies express their philosophical support, but no one rushes to our side as NATO, fatally weakened by America's exit, procrastinates.
Scientists discover that it is already safe to return to Bury St Edmunds. This revelation doesn't even make the News and very few pictures of the population's return make it into the public sphere.
With the country in chaos preparing for a war for which the Russians are also preparing through barely suppressed laughter, a small movement begins here for a second referendum. The Government responds peremptorily that the people have expressed their democratic will and that the war must go ahead. Everyone knows millions will die and the country may be obliterated, possibly plunging the planet into war ............
So in what way would giving people, who have now been given a close-up view of WAR a second chance to vote be undemocratic? And if you'd agree in those extreme circumstances, what and where is the sacred line a second Brexit vote would cross?
I remain pro-Brexit, but I said on here ad infinitum the choice was between NO DEAL and NO BREXIT. Chequers is obviously worse than our current position within the union and despite it being such a bad deal for us, it is still not acceptable to the EU. I expected this, but I don't know about the rest of the population.
If you give people a vote on something and it pans out in ways which they may not have expected I don't see how giving them a second vote destroys the sanctity of the system. Or am I an idiot? If a government wanted to offer a referendum on condition that this would be the last referendum ever then the only question possible should be:-
Should referendums be declared forever unconstitutional and illegal under UK law? YES / NO
If you invent a hole I'm not sure how it is reasonable to expect other people to explain how they would fill it, when they don't believe it exists, or will ever exist.
Anyway one of MY favourite things at the moment is the assertion that a second referendum would be undemocratic. For sure everyone was told this would be their one and only chance to vote on the issue, but so were Scots on independence and I can't see what's wrong with another vote up there, when enough people want one.
NOW, imagine a future in which relations with Russia decline alarmingly. Demands for military action are dividing the country and tearing the Government of the day apart. Thinking that they would nip the whole thing in the bud and unite their own party, the Government decide to offer a referendum on the issue, certain that the nation would NEVER vote for WAR ..........
Unfortunately during the campaign a prominent Russian businessman is found dead in mysterious circumstances at his home in Bury St Edmunds. Within days neighbours are collapsing at work, a school closes as children fall ill, the Mayor collapses during an emergency council meeting. Within days the entire town empties as refugees are pictured boarding buses with all their belongings and pets .......... THE COUNTRY VOTES FOR WAR.
Immediately military voices are raised in panic. We'll be slaughtered. We have neither the personnel, nor the arsenal to match Russia, we are million miles from ready, we need shed-loads of money spending now or even yesterday. Following the democratic will of the people the Government begins to pump its every resource into readying the country for the war it is preparing to declare. All finance is diverted to the war effort. Hospitals run short of drugs and wards close, care homes are closed and ageing relatives returned to unwilling families. The school leaving age is cut to 14 to reduce the education budget. Oxford, Cambridge and St Andrews are the only universities which remain open. Benefit payments are reduced by 85%. Major projects like HS2 and Crossrail are abandoned and the money diverted. The channel tunnel is closed. Criminals are released to enlist and dissidents take their place in prison. Those over 18, not doing work of national importance, begin to be conscripted. Parliament is suspended. The Government declares itself a national government, takes over the BBC and closes all other media outlets and closes down much of the internet. Countries which are long-standing allies express their philosophical support, but no one rushes to our side as NATO, fatally weakened by America's exit, procrastinates.
Scientists discover that it is already safe to return to Bury St Edmunds. This revelation doesn't even make the News and very few pictures of the population's return make it into the public sphere.
With the country in chaos preparing for a war for which the Russians are also preparing through barely suppressed laughter, a small movement begins here for a second referendum. The Government responds peremptorily that the people have expressed their democratic will and that the war must go ahead. Everyone knows millions will die and the country may be obliterated, possibly plunging the planet into war ............
So in what way would giving people, who have now been given a close-up view of WAR a second chance to vote be undemocratic? And if you'd agree in those extreme circumstances, what and where is the sacred line a second Brexit vote would cross?
I remain pro-Brexit, but I said on here ad infinitum the choice was between NO DEAL and NO BREXIT. Chequers is obviously worse than our current position within the union and despite it being such a bad deal for us, it is still not acceptable to the EU. I expected this, but I don't know about the rest of the population.
If you give people a vote on something and it pans out in ways which they may not have expected I don't see how giving them a second vote destroys the sanctity of the system. Or am I an idiot? If a government wanted to offer a referendum on condition that this would be the last referendum ever then the only question possible should be:-
Should referendums be declared forever unconstitutional and illegal under UK law? YES / NO