Peoples Vote Vs Referendum

[kajman]

Can anyone explain what is the difference between a "People's Vote" and a "Second Referendum"?

Everyone knows what a referendum is, why invent a new name? Do they think it will make some people vote differently?

[naomi24]

People’s vote versus referendum. Lies, lies and more lies.

[gordiescotland1]

I voted Leave in 2016 and if there was a people's vote I would vote remain. The campaign was exceptionally misleading and there was too much infighting and not enough factual information given for people to make an informed decision

[ladybirder]

People's Vote sounds like a Blairism to me:-(

[gulliver1]

Its Life Jim, but not as we know it.

[ludwig]

The whole point of the second peoples vote is to overturn the result of the first one. They want to offer choices along the lines of :-
Leave with May's deal
Leave with no deal
Remain
..thus splitting the leave vote, and ensuring remain wins by a large %, so they can say 'well that's conclusive then'.

[naomi24]

^Yes indeed. Yet another stitch up.

[Jackdaw33]

The correct term for what is laughingly called a People's Vote is a plebiscite. As has been pointed out, Switzerland make frequent use of them.

[emmie]

we voted once that should be enough.

[Blubster]

@ Ludwig

"..thus splitting the leave vote, and ensuring remain wins by a large %, so they can say 'well that's conclusive then'.

^^^^^^^^
Exactly this.

[ladybirder]

Surely they can't do that? Any idiot can see that is totally unfair. I mean seriously, surely not!

[ludwig]

// Surely they can't do that ? //

Who knows? Like I said the whole point would be to stop Brexit. There'll be just as much argument about what the question should be as there is about the actual Brexit itself. We'd probably need to have a third referendum to decide what the second referendum question should be.

[ladybirder]

I thought it must be some kind of joke when I first saw it suggested. But funny it ain't!

[Old_Geezer]

It matters not what the choices are, being asked to try again is wildly antidemocratic and would prove the lie about our governmental system being democratic.

Claims of not enough info is irrelevant. All the info one needed to know was whether one wanted to continue to be under risk of being overruled by unelected external elites, or have the confidence to get sovereignty returned. No amount of others making things awkward should encourage anyone with any strength to crumble and U turn. That would be the characteristic of a weak and ineffectual nation/people.

[Jackdaw33]

To offer more than two choices in a referendum is highly dishonest. The only options should be of the Yes or No variety.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//...That would be the characteristic of a weak and ineffectual nation/people//

"... never pay anyone Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost.
For the end of that game is oppression and shame
And the nation that plays it is lost!”

[Old_Geezer]

You must've been eating his cakes again

[vetuste_ennemi]

They're exceedingly good.

[Jackdaw33]

Is there really much difference between the Danegeld and what the EU extort from us?

[jim360]

Even the Athenians, who founded democracy after all, understood that holding multiple votes on an issue was far from undemocratic. It's a complete and utter lie, and a misunderstanding of democracy, to claim that multiple votes on the same issue is somehow an affront to that principle.

Jackdaw mentioned Switzerland's plebiscites as an example. They, too, sometimes vote on the same issue multiple times -- albeit usually separated by more than a couple of years. Still, one specific example ought to be an illustration of the point. The Swizz voted on the issue of whether or not women should be allowed to vote. The first time they tried this, in 1959, the proposal was resoundingly rejected. I should think most people would have been horrified if this were regarded as the end of the issue; luckily for us all -- and not least the Swiss women -- that result was overturned 12 years later.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//It's a complete and utter lie, and a misunderstanding of democracy, to claim that multiple votes on the same issue is somehow an affront to that principle//

"In or Out...once in a life time...we will implement what you decide".

That's what it's an affront to.

As you know, Jim.