6 ms·

Well, this explains the 3.2 pence drop of GBP vs USD today. I'm glad that they are going through with it, even though I voted to stay. Backing down would have

Well, this explains the 3.2 pence drop of GBP vs USD today. I'm glad that they are going through with it, even though I voted to stay. Backing down would have been a big signal to the public that it has no voice. At least we can say that democracy is still functioning (partially).

guelo 10y ago
The thing about referendum democracy is, if they voted again today the result would probably be different. Why is the public's desire from the past more binding than the public's desire today? The timing of referendums is a political game played by the elites to manipulate the results. But you couldn't run the country if there were periodic votes and the public changed their minds back and forth repeatedly. Direct democracy doesn't work for long term planning which is why representative democracy with slow changes in government is the only way to make a modern democracy work.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  A game played by Cameron expecting a coalition government and bugger all chance of needing to call a referendum. Probably going to hasten Scots secession too. A game Cameron wasn't very good at. He now gets the place in history he deserves. Shame everyone outside Westminster suffers though.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    I don't think you can blame it on just a game by Cameron. There definitely was a strong movement among the voters that wanted the Brexit referendum to take place. You know, in fact so strong that Brexit got a majority of votes.
    - anexprogrammer 10y ago
      No? Let's look how we got here. He boxed himself into a stupid position by betting all on renegotiating UK's place then bringing home none of the things that mattered to their party policies, finishing by tellng the country what a great job he'd done. It was a play to diffuse UKIP and the EU sceptic segment of the party which has been a varying problem for decades. Certainly since Maastricht almost split the party. Referendum wasn't necessary, there was no new treaty, no change in our terms. That's when a referendum may make sense, like fter Lisbon or Maastricht perhaps. Wilson gave us the 1975 referendum on the EEC (Britain's first referendum). That was called because euro sceptics were threatening to split the Labour party. Plus ça change. The 75 campaign had nearly everyone for remain. Tony Benn and Enoch Powell were the main proponents of out - for remarkably similar reasons. Thatcher campaigned hard for remain! All long before anyone aside from Heath and a few FO wonks knew anything about ever closer union and so on, it's just the Common Market. As we've learned since, Heath knew full well what he signed up to. Post Maastricht when realisation of union hit, UKIP and Tory Euro skeptics became more visible, and started to lead to some vote fragmentation. Some of the calls for referendum were actually audible now, and as we went through the Blair years we learned new government by pager and soundbite. This fed the rise of LibDems, Greens and UKIP (probably SNP too), as the electorate became disillusioned with media centric government. Of course many were attracted to the various policies, but a time of plummeting turnouts, and politicians no one trusts, it doesn't matter who you vote for, especially with our electoral system. Remarkably we end up with our only coalition since the war. In an age of government by ideology and Overton Windows, even on scientific and factual matters, the voters wanting a referendum was irrelevant, unless there's rioting in the streets. They sure as heck didn't listen. After Brexit both Johnson and Gove looked ashen. Neither believed they'd win. They had no clue what next. A depressing amount of Brexit voters seemed to regret the morning after or just wanted to make an anti-govt protest. A game good sir. Very badly played as it goes. Just another knee jerk idea so beloved of Cameron. No wonder May made Boris Foreign Secretary - "you broke it, you bloody fix it".
      - ptaipale 10y ago
        So it's just a "bad play of game" if a politician allows a referendum about something where a very large part, likely a majority, of the population wants a referendum? This looks to me a bit contemptuous towards the voters. And I think that contempt, quite visible in the campaign at least in British media, is precisely what turned the tide in the referendum.
        anexprogrammer 10y ago
        > So it's just a "bad play of game" if a politician allows a referendum Yes > very large part, likely a majority, of the population wants a referendum Not true. Noticable minority > This looks to me a bit contemptuous towards the voters. Politics since 1997. Hence the ever growing disconnect. Tory majority government elected by 22.5% of the electorate - the lowest figure ever. Of course it's contemptuous.
        ptaipale 10y ago
        > Tory majority government elected by 22.5% of the electorate - the lowest figure ever. I don't know how you came up with that number. Labour won a majority in 2005 with 35.2 % of votes, in an election with 61.4 % turnout. That's 21.6 % of the electorate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_electio... In 2015, Conservatives got 36.9 % of a 66.4 % turnout. That's 24.5 % of electorate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_electio...
- vixen99 10y ago
  Who says the result would be different? If the timing of referendums is a political game (actually I don't agree) played by the elites to manipulate the results then it didn't work out too well for them did it? They lost and the previously labelled fruit cakes and loonies (to quote David Cameron) won. The animus expressed by most of the elite against Leave was intense.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    Who says the result would be different? Indeed. For better or worse, the polling data so far doesn't show any great sign of "regrexit", and I've seen nothing so far to suggest that we'd collectively make a different decision if we voted again tomorrow.
- notahacker 10y ago
  The timing is probably surprisingly insignificant. The more relevant issue is that the public were asked to vote against something actual and flawed, versus an alternative of projecting their wishes about Britain's future status in the world, access to trade, levels of immigration etc. c.f. the referendum on voting systems, where the public was asked if they wanted to vote in favour of an actual, flawed replacement system and decided to accept the (in many respects at least as flawed) status quo. Ironically, I think what would have produced the reverse result in the Brexit referendum would have been a genuinely Eurosceptic government painfully awkwardly negotiating an alternative arrangement outside the EU and asking for the public to ratify it. The other irony being that - on account of the EU needing to be seen to be reasonable in their negotiations - the deal on offer would probably have been better than what we get.
- tedunangst 10y ago
  When would a nongamed referendum vote have taken place? How did the June timing manipulate the results?
- binarymax 10y ago
  You can say that about any vote. Hindsight is 20/20. I didn't think the referendum was a good idea either, but it happened, and for better or worse it must be seen through to hold at least some standard of democracy.
  - InclinedPlane 10y ago
    Some plurality of people making a choice on one day should not override the majority's decision in the future. That's not democracy.
- mzw_mzw 10y ago
  >The thing about referendum democracy is, if they voted again today the result would probably be different. Why is the public's desire from the past more binding than the public's desire today? Except you could say that about any election ever. Why is the public's desire to have Party X in power three weeks ago more binding than the public's desire to have Party X in power today?
mrweasel 10y ago
Backing down would also give the critics even more ammunition for the next EU crisis. The European politicians are exceedingly good that keeping having new referendums until the people vote in a pro-EU direction, but the anti-EU side never get "do-overs".
hackbinary 10y ago
I'm sorry, I differ. 17 million people voted to leave. 16 million voted to remain. There are 64 million people in the UK. 2 major regions voted to remain. This is the best example I have seen thus of the 'Tyranny of the minority', and this is not democracy in action.
- sbov 10y ago
  This is just how voting tends to end up in many countries. First, not everyone is eligible to vote. Second, not everyone who is eligible to vote does so. In the 2012 US presidential election, 65 million people voted for Obama. In the 2008 election, 69 million voted for him. The population was around 314 and 306 million respectively. A larger percentage of the population voted for brexit than the most recent US president.
  - hackbinary 10y ago
    Okay, first, why the downvote? My points are valid, and they add to conversation: Quorum is an important question. 26% of the population voted to leave, a great many of whom won't be alive in the next 10 years. 25% voted to remain, most of whom will be alive in the next 30-40 years. And by your logic, similarly, a larger proportion of the population voted to \remain\ than in the US Election. Just because Also, there are a very many important rights afforded to UK citizens by virtue of their treaty rights, which they will lose on actual Exit from the EU. The UK had a good in the EU, and it is shocking that we are chucking it away so frivolously.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - rm445 10y ago
      I didn't downvote but I found your point utterly specious. Meetings have quorum rules to prevent skulduggery, a minority group colluding to pack a low-attendance meeting and vote on momentous issues. A national referendum is open to anyone eligible who cares to vote. Let's say, fantastically, only one person had turned out to vote in the Brexit referendum, and the whole thing were decided by one vote to nought. So long as the referendum had been free and fair, adequately publicised and properly counted, it would completely represent the will of the whole country. Elections are decided on the opinion of those who bother to come out and vote. As for the regions and demographics, it's a decision for the whole United Kingdom. Are there actually any serious alternative ideas to giving one vote to each living adult person? p.s. I voted Remain and agree with 'chucking it away so frivolously'. I just think trying to re-slice the sausage different ways based on subsets of the voting is pointless.
untog 10y ago
It demonstrates that even putting this to a referendum in the first place was an utter farce. People voted to be free of EU regulation, but the UK depends upon the EU market, so now we'll still have to conform to the same regulations, but with the added benefit that we'll have no way to influence changing them. No one - leave or remain - is going to get what they voted for from this.

guelo 10y ago

The thing about referendum democracy is, if they voted again today the result would probably be different. Why is the public's desire from the past more binding than the public's desire today? The timing of referendums is a political game played by the elites to manipulate the results. But you couldn't run the country if there were periodic votes and the public changed their minds back and forth repeatedly. Direct democracy doesn't work for long term planning which is why representative democracy with slow changes in government is the only way to make a modern democracy work.

anexprogrammer 10y ago
A game played by Cameron expecting a coalition government and bugger all chance of needing to call a referendum. Probably going to hasten Scots secession too. A game Cameron wasn't very good at. He now gets the place in history he deserves. Shame everyone outside Westminster suffers though.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  I don't think you can blame it on just a game by Cameron. There definitely was a strong movement among the voters that wanted the Brexit referendum to take place. You know, in fact so strong that Brexit got a majority of votes.
  - anexprogrammer 10y ago
    No? Let's look how we got here. He boxed himself into a stupid position by betting all on renegotiating UK's place then bringing home none of the things that mattered to their party policies, finishing by tellng the country what a great job he'd done. It was a play to diffuse UKIP and the EU sceptic segment of the party which has been a varying problem for decades. Certainly since Maastricht almost split the party. Referendum wasn't necessary, there was no new treaty, no change in our terms. That's when a referendum may make sense, like fter Lisbon or Maastricht perhaps. Wilson gave us the 1975 referendum on the EEC (Britain's first referendum). That was called because euro sceptics were threatening to split the Labour party. Plus ça change. The 75 campaign had nearly everyone for remain. Tony Benn and Enoch Powell were the main proponents of out - for remarkably similar reasons. Thatcher campaigned hard for remain! All long before anyone aside from Heath and a few FO wonks knew anything about ever closer union and so on, it's just the Common Market. As we've learned since, Heath knew full well what he signed up to. Post Maastricht when realisation of union hit, UKIP and Tory Euro skeptics became more visible, and started to lead to some vote fragmentation. Some of the calls for referendum were actually audible now, and as we went through the Blair years we learned new government by pager and soundbite. This fed the rise of LibDems, Greens and UKIP (probably SNP too), as the electorate became disillusioned with media centric government. Of course many were attracted to the various policies, but a time of plummeting turnouts, and politicians no one trusts, it doesn't matter who you vote for, especially with our electoral system. Remarkably we end up with our only coalition since the war. In an age of government by ideology and Overton Windows, even on scientific and factual matters, the voters wanting a referendum was irrelevant, unless there's rioting in the streets. They sure as heck didn't listen. After Brexit both Johnson and Gove looked ashen. Neither believed they'd win. They had no clue what next. A depressing amount of Brexit voters seemed to regret the morning after or just wanted to make an anti-govt protest. A game good sir. Very badly played as it goes. Just another knee jerk idea so beloved of Cameron. No wonder May made Boris Foreign Secretary - "you broke it, you bloody fix it".
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      So it's just a "bad play of game" if a politician allows a referendum about something where a very large part, likely a majority, of the population wants a referendum? This looks to me a bit contemptuous towards the voters. And I think that contempt, quite visible in the campaign at least in British media, is precisely what turned the tide in the referendum.
      - anexprogrammer 10y ago
        > So it's just a "bad play of game" if a politician allows a referendum Yes > very large part, likely a majority, of the population wants a referendum Not true. Noticable minority > This looks to me a bit contemptuous towards the voters. Politics since 1997. Hence the ever growing disconnect. Tory majority government elected by 22.5% of the electorate - the lowest figure ever. Of course it's contemptuous.
        ptaipale 10y ago
        > Tory majority government elected by 22.5% of the electorate - the lowest figure ever. I don't know how you came up with that number. Labour won a majority in 2005 with 35.2 % of votes, in an election with 61.4 % turnout. That's 21.6 % of the electorate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_electio... In 2015, Conservatives got 36.9 % of a 66.4 % turnout. That's 24.5 % of electorate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_electio...
vixen99 10y ago
Who says the result would be different? If the timing of referendums is a political game (actually I don't agree) played by the elites to manipulate the results then it didn't work out too well for them did it? They lost and the previously labelled fruit cakes and loonies (to quote David Cameron) won. The animus expressed by most of the elite against Leave was intense.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  Who says the result would be different? Indeed. For better or worse, the polling data so far doesn't show any great sign of "regrexit", and I've seen nothing so far to suggest that we'd collectively make a different decision if we voted again tomorrow.
notahacker 10y ago
The timing is probably surprisingly insignificant. The more relevant issue is that the public were asked to vote against something actual and flawed, versus an alternative of projecting their wishes about Britain's future status in the world, access to trade, levels of immigration etc. c.f. the referendum on voting systems, where the public was asked if they wanted to vote in favour of an actual, flawed replacement system and decided to accept the (in many respects at least as flawed) status quo. Ironically, I think what would have produced the reverse result in the Brexit referendum would have been a genuinely Eurosceptic government painfully awkwardly negotiating an alternative arrangement outside the EU and asking for the public to ratify it. The other irony being that - on account of the EU needing to be seen to be reasonable in their negotiations - the deal on offer would probably have been better than what we get.
tedunangst 10y ago
When would a nongamed referendum vote have taken place? How did the June timing manipulate the results?
binarymax 10y ago
You can say that about any vote. Hindsight is 20/20. I didn't think the referendum was a good idea either, but it happened, and for better or worse it must be seen through to hold at least some standard of democracy.
- InclinedPlane 10y ago
  Some plurality of people making a choice on one day should not override the majority's decision in the future. That's not democracy.
mzw_mzw 10y ago
>The thing about referendum democracy is, if they voted again today the result would probably be different. Why is the public's desire from the past more binding than the public's desire today? Except you could say that about any election ever. Why is the public's desire to have Party X in power three weeks ago more binding than the public's desire to have Party X in power today?

mrweasel 10y ago

Backing down would also give the critics even more ammunition for the next EU crisis. The European politicians are exceedingly good that keeping having new referendums until the people vote in a pro-EU direction, but the anti-EU side never get "do-overs".

hackbinary 10y ago

I'm sorry, I differ. 17 million people voted to leave. 16 million voted to remain. There are 64 million people in the UK. 2 major regions voted to remain. This is the best example I have seen thus of the 'Tyranny of the minority', and this is not democracy in action.

sbov 10y ago
This is just how voting tends to end up in many countries. First, not everyone is eligible to vote. Second, not everyone who is eligible to vote does so. In the 2012 US presidential election, 65 million people voted for Obama. In the 2008 election, 69 million voted for him. The population was around 314 and 306 million respectively. A larger percentage of the population voted for brexit than the most recent US president.
- hackbinary 10y ago
  Okay, first, why the downvote? My points are valid, and they add to conversation: Quorum is an important question. 26% of the population voted to leave, a great many of whom won't be alive in the next 10 years. 25% voted to remain, most of whom will be alive in the next 30-40 years. And by your logic, similarly, a larger proportion of the population voted to \remain\ than in the US Election. Just because Also, there are a very many important rights afforded to UK citizens by virtue of their treaty rights, which they will lose on actual Exit from the EU. The UK had a good in the EU, and it is shocking that we are chucking it away so frivolously.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - rm445 10y ago
    I didn't downvote but I found your point utterly specious. Meetings have quorum rules to prevent skulduggery, a minority group colluding to pack a low-attendance meeting and vote on momentous issues. A national referendum is open to anyone eligible who cares to vote. Let's say, fantastically, only one person had turned out to vote in the Brexit referendum, and the whole thing were decided by one vote to nought. So long as the referendum had been free and fair, adequately publicised and properly counted, it would completely represent the will of the whole country. Elections are decided on the opinion of those who bother to come out and vote. As for the regions and demographics, it's a decision for the whole United Kingdom. Are there actually any serious alternative ideas to giving one vote to each living adult person? p.s. I voted Remain and agree with 'chucking it away so frivolously'. I just think trying to re-slice the sausage different ways based on subsets of the voting is pointless.

untog 10y ago

It demonstrates that even putting this to a referendum in the first place was an utter farce. People voted to be free of EU regulation, but the UK depends upon the EU market, so now we'll still have to conform to the same regulations, but with the added benefit that we'll have no way to influence changing them. No one - leave or remain - is going to get what they voted for from this.