5 ms·

That's not how democracy works. If there is a referendum, and you don't like the result, you don't just do a second referendum. If you'd do that, you could ach

That's not how democracy works. If there is a referendum, and you don't like the result, you don't just do a second referendum. If you'd do that, you could achieve any result you want, just by doing it over and over until. Due to voter's fatigue and/or daily sentiment, results will vary, so you can pick a result by deciding when to stop. It might make sense (though still be questionable) to repeat the vote if major facts changed, but I don't see that happening. The stock market shouldn't have been a big surprise, Cameron's resignation neither, nor the Leave faction retracting some of their promises. As much as I don't like the outcome of the first referendum, I think it would be fundamentally undemocratic to do a second referendum.

kbody 10y ago
Personally I think a (major) referendum should be voted twice even with just a week difference. A lot of people most probably didn't vote because they assumed the result from the pre-vote pools and for other various reasons. Now everyone is alarm, they won't be leaving it up to chance.
- TrickzOnU 10y ago
  If they didn't vote because they assumed some result, perhaps they are not as passionate about their position and should not get to vote a second time.
  - tim333 10y ago
    Quite a lot of the not voting were young people who had not figured the logistics of registering a month before and so on. The oldies who votted for brexit had mostly voted before and so were pre registered and know the procedure which slewed the results.
    - ap3 10y ago
      Maybe we should not lend a lot of weight to the opinions of adults who have not figured out how voting works
      - kbody 10y ago
        The same thing could be said to people that vote but don't understand what they are voting about. A lot of of the Exit votes were a way to express disappointed to the state of things of their lives.
sleavey 10y ago
Well, Nigel Farage immediately claimed after the vote was finished that he lied about one of the key statements made during the campaign (£350M/week to be spent on NHS instead of EU). Does that qualify as a major fact changing?
- perlgeek 10y ago
  As an outsider, this didn't surprise me very much, so I wouldn't count it. I mean, it's obvious that even though the UK may be paying more money to the EU than it receives, there are other ways in which the UK massively benefits from the EU, which will be gone after Brexit is done. So that money isn't all available. It is also not very unusual for politicians to promise more than they can keep.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    It was a huge lie, after immigration it was probably the biggest vote winner. Personally I think the Leave voters just realised that what they thought was an irrelevant naming convention is going to have serious hardships in store. Seriously: Johnson & Farage, the lead personalities of the Leave campaign have come out and said the £350 million doesn't exist. Others are saying, from the Leave campaign that we'll maintain the status quo with European trading. I'd love for us to take it back, but if they were going to do that they shouldn't have campaigned to leave. The Bank of England had plans for handling the financial downturn, uncertainty, and avoiding panic. Seems that none of the politicians for Leave bothered to think beyond the vote itself. Politicians campaigning on a specific point should face prison for fraud when they U-turn on this scale. I'm not happy just to shrug and say 'what scoundrels, eh'; it's bloody criminal, far worse than any of the normal criminal frauds.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    > here are other ways in which the UK massively benefits from the EU, See Cornwall, who voted leave but now want the money that they were getting from the EU to be protected. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-cornwall-issues-plea-for-funding-protection-after-county-overwhelmingly-votes-in-favour-of-a7101311.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-cornwa... > It is also not very unusual for politicians to promise more than they can keep. It's unusual for the lie to be so blatant, repeated so often, so obviously wrong, and retracted immediately after the polls close. Here's a picture of Boris by a sign created for the Leave campaign. It says "Let's give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week" https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/746245181532418048 https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/746245181532418048 Here's a picture of their campaign bus. That says "We send the EU £350 million a week. Let's fund our NHS instead" https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/746245181532418048 https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/746245181532418048 There's a bunch of interviews with Leave campaigners saying this money would go to the NHS. (And also being challenged on it). Here's Farage, on the morning of the results, explaining that saying it was a "mistake" to say the £350m per week would go to the NHS. https://twitter.com/GMB/status/746218028195426305 https://twitter.com/GMB/status/746218028195426305
jknz 10y ago
Another referendum is unlikely, but the next elections might have the same role. What if the next elected prime minister is elected on the promise of staying in the EU?
- verandaguy 10y ago
  > What if the next elected PM is elected on the promise of staying in the EU? They won't win the election on that promise alone, and having a full-fledged campaign alongside this kind of promise is a HUGE gambit. Many people would be unwilling to risk a good chance at winning the election over one campaign promise.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  It's quite probable that the next general election will be after the UK leaves the EU. The next prime minister will probably be whoever wins the Tory leadership election this summer, since the Tories have an outright majority.
- celticninja 10y ago
  That's an option. I'm trying to check voter data against constituency data to see if it would be possible for remain voters to vote for a party with a remain stance and win a majority. Cameron was elected with 36?% of the vote so having 48% should be doable. You would only need to contest England and Wales as the SNP and Irish MPs would support the motion. It also keeps it all nicely democratic rather than overturning a majority vote we use the existing political system to have a mandate from the people to ignore the result.
dragonwriter 10y ago
Democracy works however the people subject to it decide it works. To the extent that's not true, it's not democracy at all.
- perlgeek 10y ago
  That is true, but not very enlightening as such. The petition is signed by fewer folks than those that voted to remain in the EU, so it could "just" be a fraction of those that already voted calling for a second referendum. That's not the same as the people collectively deciding something different than before.
frou_dh 10y ago
The petition isn't specifically asking for a 2nd referendum. It asked for a rule to be added to the one that has now already taken place. (Post edited after I was corrected about the petition's original creation date)
- tim333 10y ago
  The petition was set up before the first brexit vote. It's just people are voting for it now. What if after seeing the results, plunging markets, Farage admitting the £350m to the NHS thing was BS, Calais saying they'll move the refugee camps to the UK by refusing to allow the UK border control to operate in France, there is now a majority wanting to remain? Should they ram through the exit against the public wishes because they were successfully conned in the first referendum?
  - frou_dh 10y ago
    (removed inaccurate post)
    - tim333 10y ago
      Ah - you may be correct.
    - ap3 10y ago
      2016-05-23 That's a month before
      - frou_dh 10y ago
        Oh dear! Too focused on the LSBs. Thanks
aardshark 10y ago
I think a set number of multiple referendums, say best of 3, would be a more reliable way of judging the opinion of the population.
prodmerc 10y ago
Well they could always do a recount. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele... Or is 4% enough of a difference to eliminate errors?
- tim333 10y ago
  It was well counted. That's not going to change things.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

kbody 10y ago

Personally I think a (major) referendum should be voted twice even with just a week difference. A lot of people most probably didn't vote because they assumed the result from the pre-vote pools and for other various reasons. Now everyone is alarm, they won't be leaving it up to chance.

TrickzOnU 10y ago
If they didn't vote because they assumed some result, perhaps they are not as passionate about their position and should not get to vote a second time.
- tim333 10y ago
  Quite a lot of the not voting were young people who had not figured the logistics of registering a month before and so on. The oldies who votted for brexit had mostly voted before and so were pre registered and know the procedure which slewed the results.
  - ap3 10y ago
    Maybe we should not lend a lot of weight to the opinions of adults who have not figured out how voting works
    - kbody 10y ago
      The same thing could be said to people that vote but don't understand what they are voting about. A lot of of the Exit votes were a way to express disappointed to the state of things of their lives.

sleavey 10y ago

Well, Nigel Farage immediately claimed after the vote was finished that he lied about one of the key statements made during the campaign (£350M/week to be spent on NHS instead of EU). Does that qualify as a major fact changing?

perlgeek 10y ago
As an outsider, this didn't surprise me very much, so I wouldn't count it. I mean, it's obvious that even though the UK may be paying more money to the EU than it receives, there are other ways in which the UK massively benefits from the EU, which will be gone after Brexit is done. So that money isn't all available. It is also not very unusual for politicians to promise more than they can keep.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  It was a huge lie, after immigration it was probably the biggest vote winner. Personally I think the Leave voters just realised that what they thought was an irrelevant naming convention is going to have serious hardships in store. Seriously: Johnson & Farage, the lead personalities of the Leave campaign have come out and said the £350 million doesn't exist. Others are saying, from the Leave campaign that we'll maintain the status quo with European trading. I'd love for us to take it back, but if they were going to do that they shouldn't have campaigned to leave. The Bank of England had plans for handling the financial downturn, uncertainty, and avoiding panic. Seems that none of the politicians for Leave bothered to think beyond the vote itself. Politicians campaigning on a specific point should face prison for fraud when they U-turn on this scale. I'm not happy just to shrug and say 'what scoundrels, eh'; it's bloody criminal, far worse than any of the normal criminal frauds.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > here are other ways in which the UK massively benefits from the EU, See Cornwall, who voted leave but now want the money that they were getting from the EU to be protected. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-cornwall-issues-plea-for-funding-protection-after-county-overwhelmingly-votes-in-favour-of-a7101311.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-cornwa... > It is also not very unusual for politicians to promise more than they can keep. It's unusual for the lie to be so blatant, repeated so often, so obviously wrong, and retracted immediately after the polls close. Here's a picture of Boris by a sign created for the Leave campaign. It says "Let's give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week" https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/746245181532418048 https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/746245181532418048 Here's a picture of their campaign bus. That says "We send the EU £350 million a week. Let's fund our NHS instead" https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/746245181532418048 https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/746245181532418048 There's a bunch of interviews with Leave campaigners saying this money would go to the NHS. (And also being challenged on it). Here's Farage, on the morning of the results, explaining that saying it was a "mistake" to say the £350m per week would go to the NHS. https://twitter.com/GMB/status/746218028195426305 https://twitter.com/GMB/status/746218028195426305

jknz 10y ago

Another referendum is unlikely, but the next elections might have the same role. What if the next elected prime minister is elected on the promise of staying in the EU?

verandaguy 10y ago
> What if the next elected PM is elected on the promise of staying in the EU? They won't win the election on that promise alone, and having a full-fledged campaign alongside this kind of promise is a HUGE gambit. Many people would be unwilling to risk a good chance at winning the election over one campaign promise.
dragonwriter 10y ago
It's quite probable that the next general election will be after the UK leaves the EU. The next prime minister will probably be whoever wins the Tory leadership election this summer, since the Tories have an outright majority.
celticninja 10y ago
That's an option. I'm trying to check voter data against constituency data to see if it would be possible for remain voters to vote for a party with a remain stance and win a majority. Cameron was elected with 36?% of the vote so having 48% should be doable. You would only need to contest England and Wales as the SNP and Irish MPs would support the motion. It also keeps it all nicely democratic rather than overturning a majority vote we use the existing political system to have a mandate from the people to ignore the result.

dragonwriter 10y ago

Democracy works however the people subject to it decide it works. To the extent that's not true, it's not democracy at all.

perlgeek 10y ago
That is true, but not very enlightening as such. The petition is signed by fewer folks than those that voted to remain in the EU, so it could "just" be a fraction of those that already voted calling for a second referendum. That's not the same as the people collectively deciding something different than before.

frou_dh 10y ago

The petition isn't specifically asking for a 2nd referendum. It asked for a rule to be added to the one that has now already taken place. (Post edited after I was corrected about the petition's original creation date)

tim333 10y ago
The petition was set up before the first brexit vote. It's just people are voting for it now. What if after seeing the results, plunging markets, Farage admitting the £350m to the NHS thing was BS, Calais saying they'll move the refugee camps to the UK by refusing to allow the UK border control to operate in France, there is now a majority wanting to remain? Should they ram through the exit against the public wishes because they were successfully conned in the first referendum?
- frou_dh 10y ago
  (removed inaccurate post)
  - tim333 10y ago
    Ah - you may be correct.
  - ap3 10y ago
    2016-05-23 That's a month before
    - frou_dh 10y ago
      Oh dear! Too focused on the LSBs. Thanks

aardshark 10y ago

I think a set number of multiple referendums, say best of 3, would be a more reliable way of judging the opinion of the population.

prodmerc 10y ago

Well they could always do a recount. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele... Or is 4% enough of a difference to eliminate errors?

tim333 10y ago
It was well counted. That's not going to change things.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]