6 ms·

An astute online comment has some wondering whether Brexit may ever happen

62 points by ScottBurson 10y ago

Pinckney 10y ago
Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11980098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11980098
Aelinsaar 10y ago
The smart political calculation is probably to delay, delay, delay, then hold another vote that won't pass and move on with life. Unless they've totally given up on keeping Scotland in the UK I guess.
barisser 10y ago
Whatever your opinion on Brexit, it would be a miscarriage of democracy to ignore the referendum's result, even if it is not strictly legally binding. If Leave can win now, it will garner more support if the public's will is neglected. Also the comment takes it as a foregone conclusion that triggering Article 50 would spell the political demise of the sitting Prime Minister. Isn't this a dubious assumption? We're seeing short-term market reactions today, but it is a very different thing to assert that the long-term impacts are as suicidal as is commonly believed.
- mc32 10y ago
  If they pull that on people. Use this technicality, it's like the establishment saying: "We grant you have a democracy, except when we disagree with you and your vote". Mocking voters. At that point, British democracy would become a farce with consequences quite possibly worse than the predictions remainders predict for leaving.
- dnr 10y ago
  Unless they dally for a year or two, then hold another referendum: given the age demographics of the vote, even a year or two of old people dying off and young ones coming of age is probably enough to shift it back (and it's even possible another vote held tomorrow would go Remain).
- kmiroslav 10y ago
  Technically, sure. Practically... it's a 52%/48% vote. Hardly a mandate. Some people say a revote might yield an opposite result, which means the current outcome is probably under the margin of error. It wouldn't exactly be a miscarriage of democracy to not follow through and see how things unfold in the next couple of years, and maybe vote again to see if the gap widens or if our country remains split in the middle on the issue. At any rate, this comment about the situation is frighteningly deep and chilling.
  - jimktrains2 10y ago
    Is there a margin of error with a vote like this? Isn't it a direct count of people who want their opinion known? It isn't sampling and trying to figure out what everyone wants.
    - ianai 10y ago
      I don't know about 'error' but there's definitely room for valid decision changes. You can take most things back within a grace period after signing the dotted line, after all.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - jimktrains2 10y ago
        But that isn't what this measured. Like how the US census is suppose to be an exact count of everyone on April 1; it may change due to births and deaths, but on that day (at some time) it is suppose to be exact. A vote is an exact count of the will of the people at a given time. There is no error. People can change their minds, but that isn't what the vote represent. That is, a vote is what people who chose to vote said they wanted, not a probabilist representation of what the people as a whole want.
    - shawkinaw 10y ago
      Given that people apparently keep changing their minds right up to voting day (indicated by polls), I think there is actually a lot of noise in the result.
- Tiktaalik 10y ago
  I think that given the weak mandate and highly regional nature of the vote, there would be a pretty good justification for politicians to not follow through and invoke article 50. This doesn't mean ignoring the results of the referendum, but instead taking the result as a statement from the populace and using that to inform future reforms.
- ellius 10y ago
  I saw an astute comment somewhere that boiled down to, "Look, it wasn't pitched as 'give us your opinion.'" You're dead on about more serious consequences, especially in the current political environment. You have candidates in the US like Trump and Sanders basically saying to the average voter, "Look, you're being played for a sucker." Nothing would prove them right more than taking a democratic referendum and throwing out the result. It never should have happened in the first place. The original signers to the agreement should have put in provisions requiring a supermajority vote to undo membership. But the fact is it did, and they didn't. Forget about crashing markets. The idea that democracy is even functioning is under threat, and people are ready to elect authoritarians to make sure their voices are finally heard. I'm not one to make light of economic consequences--they literally ruin lives--but something bigger is at stake here. The die is cast. The consequnces of rethrowing are more perilous than letting it land.
  - vacri 10y ago
    > The original signers to the agreement should have put in provisions requiring a supermajority vote to undo membership. They did, however, put in 'non-binding'. The referendum actually is 'give us your opinion', regardless of whether it was pitched that way. > The consequnces of rethrowing are more perilous than letting it land. Nonsense. Another referendum of "Lots of you seem to have been unaware of the extent of the ramifications of this. Let's hold another referendum to make sure that we want this, before we start down the irreversible path. This time, it will be legally binding to avoid a repeat of this action". This isn't a playground, but real affects on people's lives - it's worth being sure first. You're still asking the people for what they want, and this time they will have better educated themselves about the issues for and against.
    - klagermkii 10y ago
      But you can't do a more binding referendum than this in the UK. There is no more binding than the Prime Minister promising to do something immediately after the vote. This isn't like other countries which have some kind of constitutional mechanism for holding binding referendums, Parliament always has the final say in the UK.
- maxander 10y ago
  There are two big results lately that pit the will of the people directly against the elite opinion- the Brexit and the nomination of Trump. Both have suggestions of being opposed by last-minute political maneuvering. It will be interesting to see how both play out. The long-term (at least as long as politicians are concerned) impact of the Brexit is unlikely to be good- mostly because the EU has a strong reason to make an example of Britain that convinces other countries to stay in- and is also likely to be complicated. Further, politicians rely on wealthy backers, and these are going to be dismayed at the short-term implications of the Brexit more than anyone. So the new PM would have everything to lose and little to gain by invoking article 50 immediately. They could put it off a year. And then decide that issues arose requiring it to be delayed a year after that, and later... it could go on indefinitely.
- jrockway 10y ago
  It's not a miscarriage of democracy to ignore the referendum result. The point of democracy is to elect representatives that can think about solutions and their consequences better than the average person. In the case of Brexit, there are a lot of good reasons for the elected representatives to ignore the result. For one thing, while 52% of people want to leave, 48% of people don't. That's no better than a coin toss. Of the people that voted, there are many reports that they did it "as a protest", or didn't understand what leaving the EU meant. Additionally, a large part of the "leave" demographic is going to be dead well before the consequences of the Brexit are fully realized. Why should someone who will have to deal with the consequences for 10 years get the same say as someone who will have to deal with the consequences for 90 years? Anyway, given the coin-toss like results, 50% of the people are going to be unhappy regardless of the eventual outcome. I would stick with 50% of unhappy people and a strong currency, personally, as opposed to 50% unhappy people and a weak one. I guess that's why I don't win elections, though.
  - internaut 10y ago
    > It's not a miscarriage of democracy to ignore the referendum result. How is a referendum different from a direct instance of democracy. I really want to know. I don't like democracy, so don't get confused about my political orientation. That's not the problem here. > The point of democracy is to elect representatives That is Republicanism. > that can think about solutions and their consequences better than the average person. That is epistocracy. Sometimes it is known as the original purpose of the aristocracy before that got a bad rep for a century or two after the last time Europe went into a complete meltdown during the Revolution. Definitions aside I believe you are horribly underestimating the probability of violence breaking out if this referendum result is ignored. It is close to 100%. CFAR says when you're a 100% sure that you're actually only correct 66% of the time. Taking that as a given, this means you have a 66% chance of riots and worse. The working class are not going to lie down on this one. For them this will be the straw that broke the camel's back. I know them personally and assure you this will be seen as nothing less than a complete betrayal by elites. For them it means there is no hope left. Well known pragmatist President Snow would be agog at what I'm seeing expressed on HN, what seems sensible to many people here is suicidal.
- threatofrain 10y ago
  I propose that it would not be a miscarriage of democracy for the UK to reject the referendum result, because the referendum was non-binding to begin with. This is not the same thing as California's proposition process, which is not a suggestion to legislature; it is part of the legislative process itself. Also, the UK does not have a democracy. They have a parliamentary democracy, which means they believe that elected experts or elites can decide matters better than popular votes. If elected officials feel that their careers are worth sacrificing for the good of the country, that is in lawful keeping with the boundaries of their parliamentary democracy, just as it would be just for the people to vote out their elected officials if they feel that would be a superior decision for the country.
wsc981 10y ago
I understand that in many of the areas that voted in favour of Brexit, most people vote for Labour. I would think that makes it more likely for Labour to win next elections? In that case Boris Johnson would be out of the picture regardless. See: https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/746979915896070144 https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/746979915896070144
- internaut 10y ago
  I think, no offense to you personally, but many people here don't quite grasp how drastically the frame has shifted. There may not be a Labour political party by next elections. Labour is disintegrating as we discuss this.
thrden 10y ago
In all this backlash, I wonder if the people who have come out strongly remain, realize that they are trying to help massive corporations subvert a democratic referendum. Its my understanding that the people who are most strongly for remain, fits nicely within the demographic that defines itself as progressive, whose policy choices take an often anti-corporate form.
- 13years 10y ago
  It is interestingly ironic. By some analysis, the remain are indeed at conflict with what might be seen as some progressive wins by this resolution. http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/06/24/the-brexit-vote-what-does-it-mean/ http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/06/24/the-brexit-vo...
- ianai 10y ago
  Just because you don't like who agrees with you doesn't mean you're making the wrong choice.
- pyre 10y ago
  Are you saying that the only way for someone to be a "progressive" is to blindly vote on the opposite of whatever "corporations" want? That's a rather "wild" definition of progressive.
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  It's almost as though "progressives" are less defined by single issues and stances, and a bit more nuanced than you're giving them credit for?
- aggie 10y ago
  It's surprising that progressives are 'helping' advance corporate interests when their interests are aligned?
mabbo 10y ago
This is exactly why the rest of the EU is pushing so hard for the UK to leave soon. "Put up or shut up", basically.
raspasov 10y ago
That's smart. By resigning, Cameron effectively scheduled a second referendum on the issue, aka the next election.
- sbmassey 10y ago
  His resignation does not trigger an election, if that is what you meant, but the selection of a new prime minister by the Conservatives.
  - raspasov 10y ago
    Thank you for the clarification.
billyjobob 10y ago
Brits have a long* history of democracy and hold it as rather important. If article 50 hasn't been invoked by 5th November there will be riots on the streets. * not really that long, but longer than most
onewaystreet 10y ago
> The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50? Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders? This comment ignores ideology. For diehard anti-eu supporters triggering Article 50 isn't some grave decision. They don't care about the ramifications and consequences (or more distinctly, they don't agree that they will be bad). Maybe Boris and Farage really didn't want to win, but that doesn't really matter, they did and their party will force them to follow through on it.
altern8tif 10y ago
If you are given the responsibility to vote (or to lead a campaign), you should be willing to accept the consequences of the result wholeheartedly. If Boris Johnson or whichever leader of the "Leave" movement replaces Cameron, they need to trigger Article 50 (and accept whatever consequences that arise from the exit). Failure of which will cast doubt on their conviction for leaving the EU. This will cast a pall over their time in office. Cameron's move to resign is a shrewd and calculated one. While he is already culpable for calling the referendum in the first place, he is placing the responsibility of triggering Article 50 on the people who so fervently called for it.

62 points by ScottBurson 10y ago

Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11980098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11980098

The smart political calculation is probably to delay, delay, delay, then hold another vote that won't pass and move on with life. Unless they've totally given up on keeping Scotland in the UK I guess.

barisser 10y ago

Whatever your opinion on Brexit, it would be a miscarriage of democracy to ignore the referendum's result, even if it is not strictly legally binding. If Leave can win now, it will garner more support if the public's will is neglected. Also the comment takes it as a foregone conclusion that triggering Article 50 would spell the political demise of the sitting Prime Minister. Isn't this a dubious assumption? We're seeing short-term market reactions today, but it is a very different thing to assert that the long-term impacts are as suicidal as is commonly believed.

mc32 10y ago
If they pull that on people. Use this technicality, it's like the establishment saying: "We grant you have a democracy, except when we disagree with you and your vote". Mocking voters. At that point, British democracy would become a farce with consequences quite possibly worse than the predictions remainders predict for leaving.
dnr 10y ago
Unless they dally for a year or two, then hold another referendum: given the age demographics of the vote, even a year or two of old people dying off and young ones coming of age is probably enough to shift it back (and it's even possible another vote held tomorrow would go Remain).
kmiroslav 10y ago
Technically, sure. Practically... it's a 52%/48% vote. Hardly a mandate. Some people say a revote might yield an opposite result, which means the current outcome is probably under the margin of error. It wouldn't exactly be a miscarriage of democracy to not follow through and see how things unfold in the next couple of years, and maybe vote again to see if the gap widens or if our country remains split in the middle on the issue. At any rate, this comment about the situation is frighteningly deep and chilling.
- jimktrains2 10y ago
  Is there a margin of error with a vote like this? Isn't it a direct count of people who want their opinion known? It isn't sampling and trying to figure out what everyone wants.
  - ianai 10y ago
    I don't know about 'error' but there's definitely room for valid decision changes. You can take most things back within a grace period after signing the dotted line, after all.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - jimktrains2 10y ago
      But that isn't what this measured. Like how the US census is suppose to be an exact count of everyone on April 1; it may change due to births and deaths, but on that day (at some time) it is suppose to be exact. A vote is an exact count of the will of the people at a given time. There is no error. People can change their minds, but that isn't what the vote represent. That is, a vote is what people who chose to vote said they wanted, not a probabilist representation of what the people as a whole want.
  - shawkinaw 10y ago
    Given that people apparently keep changing their minds right up to voting day (indicated by polls), I think there is actually a lot of noise in the result.
Tiktaalik 10y ago
I think that given the weak mandate and highly regional nature of the vote, there would be a pretty good justification for politicians to not follow through and invoke article 50. This doesn't mean ignoring the results of the referendum, but instead taking the result as a statement from the populace and using that to inform future reforms.
ellius 10y ago
I saw an astute comment somewhere that boiled down to, "Look, it wasn't pitched as 'give us your opinion.'" You're dead on about more serious consequences, especially in the current political environment. You have candidates in the US like Trump and Sanders basically saying to the average voter, "Look, you're being played for a sucker." Nothing would prove them right more than taking a democratic referendum and throwing out the result. It never should have happened in the first place. The original signers to the agreement should have put in provisions requiring a supermajority vote to undo membership. But the fact is it did, and they didn't. Forget about crashing markets. The idea that democracy is even functioning is under threat, and people are ready to elect authoritarians to make sure their voices are finally heard. I'm not one to make light of economic consequences--they literally ruin lives--but something bigger is at stake here. The die is cast. The consequnces of rethrowing are more perilous than letting it land.
- vacri 10y ago
  > The original signers to the agreement should have put in provisions requiring a supermajority vote to undo membership. They did, however, put in 'non-binding'. The referendum actually is 'give us your opinion', regardless of whether it was pitched that way. > The consequnces of rethrowing are more perilous than letting it land. Nonsense. Another referendum of "Lots of you seem to have been unaware of the extent of the ramifications of this. Let's hold another referendum to make sure that we want this, before we start down the irreversible path. This time, it will be legally binding to avoid a repeat of this action". This isn't a playground, but real affects on people's lives - it's worth being sure first. You're still asking the people for what they want, and this time they will have better educated themselves about the issues for and against.
  - klagermkii 10y ago
    But you can't do a more binding referendum than this in the UK. There is no more binding than the Prime Minister promising to do something immediately after the vote. This isn't like other countries which have some kind of constitutional mechanism for holding binding referendums, Parliament always has the final say in the UK.
maxander 10y ago
There are two big results lately that pit the will of the people directly against the elite opinion- the Brexit and the nomination of Trump. Both have suggestions of being opposed by last-minute political maneuvering. It will be interesting to see how both play out. The long-term (at least as long as politicians are concerned) impact of the Brexit is unlikely to be good- mostly because the EU has a strong reason to make an example of Britain that convinces other countries to stay in- and is also likely to be complicated. Further, politicians rely on wealthy backers, and these are going to be dismayed at the short-term implications of the Brexit more than anyone. So the new PM would have everything to lose and little to gain by invoking article 50 immediately. They could put it off a year. And then decide that issues arose requiring it to be delayed a year after that, and later... it could go on indefinitely.
jrockway 10y ago
It's not a miscarriage of democracy to ignore the referendum result. The point of democracy is to elect representatives that can think about solutions and their consequences better than the average person. In the case of Brexit, there are a lot of good reasons for the elected representatives to ignore the result. For one thing, while 52% of people want to leave, 48% of people don't. That's no better than a coin toss. Of the people that voted, there are many reports that they did it "as a protest", or didn't understand what leaving the EU meant. Additionally, a large part of the "leave" demographic is going to be dead well before the consequences of the Brexit are fully realized. Why should someone who will have to deal with the consequences for 10 years get the same say as someone who will have to deal with the consequences for 90 years? Anyway, given the coin-toss like results, 50% of the people are going to be unhappy regardless of the eventual outcome. I would stick with 50% of unhappy people and a strong currency, personally, as opposed to 50% unhappy people and a weak one. I guess that's why I don't win elections, though.
- internaut 10y ago
  > It's not a miscarriage of democracy to ignore the referendum result. How is a referendum different from a direct instance of democracy. I really want to know. I don't like democracy, so don't get confused about my political orientation. That's not the problem here. > The point of democracy is to elect representatives That is Republicanism. > that can think about solutions and their consequences better than the average person. That is epistocracy. Sometimes it is known as the original purpose of the aristocracy before that got a bad rep for a century or two after the last time Europe went into a complete meltdown during the Revolution. Definitions aside I believe you are horribly underestimating the probability of violence breaking out if this referendum result is ignored. It is close to 100%. CFAR says when you're a 100% sure that you're actually only correct 66% of the time. Taking that as a given, this means you have a 66% chance of riots and worse. The working class are not going to lie down on this one. For them this will be the straw that broke the camel's back. I know them personally and assure you this will be seen as nothing less than a complete betrayal by elites. For them it means there is no hope left. Well known pragmatist President Snow would be agog at what I'm seeing expressed on HN, what seems sensible to many people here is suicidal.
threatofrain 10y ago
I propose that it would not be a miscarriage of democracy for the UK to reject the referendum result, because the referendum was non-binding to begin with. This is not the same thing as California's proposition process, which is not a suggestion to legislature; it is part of the legislative process itself. Also, the UK does not have a democracy. They have a parliamentary democracy, which means they believe that elected experts or elites can decide matters better than popular votes. If elected officials feel that their careers are worth sacrificing for the good of the country, that is in lawful keeping with the boundaries of their parliamentary democracy, just as it would be just for the people to vote out their elected officials if they feel that would be a superior decision for the country.

wsc981 10y ago

I understand that in many of the areas that voted in favour of Brexit, most people vote for Labour. I would think that makes it more likely for Labour to win next elections? In that case Boris Johnson would be out of the picture regardless. See: https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/746979915896070144 https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/746979915896070144

internaut 10y ago
I think, no offense to you personally, but many people here don't quite grasp how drastically the frame has shifted. There may not be a Labour political party by next elections. Labour is disintegrating as we discuss this.

thrden 10y ago

In all this backlash, I wonder if the people who have come out strongly remain, realize that they are trying to help massive corporations subvert a democratic referendum. Its my understanding that the people who are most strongly for remain, fits nicely within the demographic that defines itself as progressive, whose policy choices take an often anti-corporate form.

13years 10y ago
It is interestingly ironic. By some analysis, the remain are indeed at conflict with what might be seen as some progressive wins by this resolution. http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/06/24/the-brexit-vote-what-does-it-mean/ http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/06/24/the-brexit-vo...
ianai 10y ago
Just because you don't like who agrees with you doesn't mean you're making the wrong choice.
pyre 10y ago
Are you saying that the only way for someone to be a "progressive" is to blindly vote on the opposite of whatever "corporations" want? That's a rather "wild" definition of progressive.
Aelinsaar 10y ago
It's almost as though "progressives" are less defined by single issues and stances, and a bit more nuanced than you're giving them credit for?
aggie 10y ago
It's surprising that progressives are 'helping' advance corporate interests when their interests are aligned?

mabbo 10y ago

This is exactly why the rest of the EU is pushing so hard for the UK to leave soon. "Put up or shut up", basically.

raspasov 10y ago

That's smart. By resigning, Cameron effectively scheduled a second referendum on the issue, aka the next election.

sbmassey 10y ago
His resignation does not trigger an election, if that is what you meant, but the selection of a new prime minister by the Conservatives.
- raspasov 10y ago
  Thank you for the clarification.

billyjobob 10y ago

Brits have a long* history of democracy and hold it as rather important. If article 50 hasn't been invoked by 5th November there will be riots on the streets. * not really that long, but longer than most

onewaystreet 10y ago

> The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50? Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders? This comment ignores ideology. For diehard anti-eu supporters triggering Article 50 isn't some grave decision. They don't care about the ramifications and consequences (or more distinctly, they don't agree that they will be bad). Maybe Boris and Farage really didn't want to win, but that doesn't really matter, they did and their party will force them to follow through on it.

altern8tif 10y ago

If you are given the responsibility to vote (or to lead a campaign), you should be willing to accept the consequences of the result wholeheartedly. If Boris Johnson or whichever leader of the "Leave" movement replaces Cameron, they need to trigger Article 50 (and accept whatever consequences that arise from the exit). Failure of which will cast doubt on their conviction for leaving the EU. This will cast a pall over their time in office. Cameron's move to resign is a shrewd and calculated one. While he is already culpable for calling the referendum in the first place, he is placing the responsibility of triggering Article 50 on the people who so fervently called for it.