Should Brexit be stopped?

Istock-542714930  wide

‚ÄčThere have been calls for a debate on halting Brexit - do you agree?

Graham Martin's photo

20th July 2017 by Graham Martin 5 Comments

Should Brexit be stopped?

Poll results (total votes: 144)

Should Brexit be stopped?

Scottish civil society leaders joined figures from business, politics and the arts this week when they demanded a debate on halting Brexit.

They wrote an open letter saying it is “always possible to think again and to choose a different direction”, claiming the narrowly carried decision to leave the European Union is undermining society, the economy and politics.

More than 60 signed the letter, which calls for a national debate on ending Brexit – before it is too late and any damage done is irreparable.

That’s why we’re asking: what do you think – should Brexit be halted – or have the people spoken and we should just get on with it?

20th July 2017 by J McKie

By challenging Brexit, you challenge democracy. Why would anyone want to vote in the future if the decision was not definitive?We should be pulling together in order that the UK can negotiate the best possible deal and be more optimistic to the positive opportunities which will open up to the UK not shackled to a 'federal state' dominated by Germany and France. View Greece as a lesson to be learnt and read the Adults in the Room by the former Greek finance minister.Any 'club' which sets out with the intention to make the process of leaving difficult & expensive, surely should be questioned. The EU's only regret regarding the UK leaving is the massive financial contribution we make which they will have to cover in the future. It is ironic that only at this juncture the EU is now willing to consider that change is needed. To little, too late.

21st July 2017 by Tiiu-Imbi Miller

There is nothing undemocratic about challenging a decision. In a democracy any deal, law, plan etc. may be challenged, but it would be undemocratic to go back on it without giving the people a second chance to vote, maybe after we see what the deal is.

21st July 2017 by Richard Howat

With regard to Westminister we have the opportunity to review our democratically taken decision every five years. In addition who can honestly say they knew the full implications of a leave vote during the campaign. It was akin to buying a ticket for a raffle with a promised first prize of a luxury holiday and finding out later it was a fortnight in Butlins.

24th July 2017 by PAULA LLOYD

Don't like the terms I've heard so far and don't trust the Tories to negotiate.

25th July 2017 by katy lamb

When it is decided to vote on something very complicated such as leaving the EU, it should not be done on a straight majority of votes cast which could be as low as 1. For all such votes, the results should always be weighted in favour of the status quo eg minimum 60% of those voting or 60% of electorate must vote to change. Safeguards like this should always be built in as the risk factors involved in change are massive for a country. Whether you are pro something or anti something does not come into it. With these kinds of safeguards, it ensures that if a country is going to take a massive risk, it is doing it with a genuine "substantial" majority. There is also a case for having a "two tier" referendum, whereby if a certain % target for "change" is triggered, 2 months later another vote is held at a different trigger. This would allow time for more informed debate when both sides would really have to put their money where their mouth is. If the initial trigger was not met then, the 2nd vote would not take place. For votes on huge National change, such as this, it is a nonsense to talk substantial majorities if less than 50% of the electorate. Only 37% of the electorate voted to leave the EU and whether one voted leave or stay, few can honestly say they know what the question actually meant in practice, including those that posed it on the ballot sheet.