7 ms·

To me a referendum is a clearer mandate than any general election (especially using a First Past the Post system) as it's more focused on a single topic and is

To me a referendum is a clearer mandate than any general election (especially using a First Past the Post system) as it's more focused on a single topic and is (partially) free of the baggage of party alliegance. Given the percentage of the electorate who supported the current government at the last general election, it doesn't seem likely that you'd get a clearer mandate from a new one. It seems to me that Mrs May didn't have a lot of choice here, a large portion of the exit vote (which won) was predicated on "control the borders" and the only way that can be delivered is by leaving the single market, anything else is evidently not delivering the will of the majority. (before you assuming I'm a brexiter, I'm not, personally I think it's a terrible idea, however we live in a democracy and the exit vote won, simple as that)

gpderetta 10y ago
clear mandate to what exactly? Hard brexit? Why would you assume that would be the preferred outcome of a majority of the population?
- raesene6 10y ago
  Clear mandate to achieve the aims campaigned on. A large part of the the brexit campaign revolved around control of immigration. Now control of immigration predicates leaving the single market as one of the principles of that is freedom of movement, so there's literally no way to achieve the stated brexit campaign goals without leaving the single market. I didn't say anything about the majority of the population I said people who voted in favour of the referendum. The reality of our electoral system is that you just need the majority of voters, not population (well unless you're scotland in the 70's that is) EDIT : in case anyone wants to argue that immigration wasn't a key part of the leave campaign... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referendum-reality-check-leave-campaign-promises https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referend... a key pledge related to immigration directly and another was closely associated
dragonwriter 10y ago
> To me a referendum is a clearer mandate than any general election It's potentially a clearer mandate on, at most, exactly the question asked in the referendum, but it's not a mandate for any particular method of implementing it nor is it a mandate for any party's or leader's judgement in pursuing it, nor is it even a mandate for any choice on balancing that one priority against others.
- raesene6 10y ago
  but the implementation of "control the borders" (a key brexit tenet) requires leaving the single market, the EU has made it crystal clear that you can't remove the right to freedom of movement whilst remaining in the union. EDIT : in case anyone wants to argue that immigration wasn't a key part of the leave campaign... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referendum-reality-check-leave-campaign-promises https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referend... a key pledge related to immigration directly and another was closely associated
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > a key brexit tenet A majority of a majority is not necessarily itself a majority, which is why a referendum -- especially one narrowly approved -- provides no mandate beyond the question asked, including on "key tenets" of the campaign for the position that wins that are, themselves, not included in the question asked.
    - raesene6 10y ago
      Let me ask you a question, do you honestly believe that control of immigration wasn't a key reason that people voted for the leave campaign?
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        I believe that it was a key factor for many voters, as, for many of those same voters, was the belief that it could be done while retaining the benefits of the common market.
rusk 10y ago
I have voted in a great many referendums here in Ireland. They typically arise when a constitutional amendment is required, and the language in them is pretty clear and unequivocal. You are presented with the actual literal constitutional changes and whether they are acceptable or not. Usually (but far less so than I would like) there is a public debate about the pros and cons of the proposed changes. The discussion isn't merely polarised, sometimes you will have people who agree with the general principle of the change, but object in terms of the actual proposed amendment. Perhaps on the grounds that it doesn't go far enough. Perhaps on the grounds that the specific wording leaves open other dangerous consequences. As far as I understand it, the Brexit poll presented voters with the options "Remain" and "Leave". There wasn't any definitive statement on what "Leave" means. Of course it literally means "Hard Brexit" but I don't believe this is what most people had in mind, nor were they adequately briefed on the consequences. The connection to Article 50 of the EU constitution as a means to "Leave" seems to have been made post hoc. If you dispute that most British people made this decision knowingly I urge you to read Dominic Cummings' gleeful account of how he believes he captured and manipulated the Brexit vote [0] (it's a fascinating read by the way, and I do have a huge amount of respect for the guy, though his underlying motives seem somewhat veiled). I agree it seems unlikely at this stage a second referendum would yield a different result. We are definitely in one of these "it's going to get worse before it gets better" situations. However, you do have an unelected government interpreting the meaning of "Leave" and presenting a vision of what post-Brexit Britain should look like, and that in particular is what's worrying. [0] https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/on-the-referendum-20-the-campaign-physics-and-data-science-vote-leaves-voter-intention-collection-system-vics-now-available-for-all/ https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/on-the-refe...
- raesene6 10y ago
  oh no I'm not suggesting that people knew what they were getting into in full, but then given that this is entirely unchartered territory I don't see how that could have worked really. This has never been done before and therefore no-one knows what it means. Both sides of the campaign, in my view, heavily had the Fear Uncertainty and Doubt angles playing, but then that's no different to most/all UK elections (just look at the scottish referendum for another example) However what I do think is that the leave campaign rhetoric (which won) largely revolved around border control and immigration, and any outcome that didn't involve a change here wouldn't be respecting the "will of the people". It's been clear since the vote that the EU (rightly in my opinion) won't budge on this point so the PM had to either do what she's done or basically disregard the result of the referendum. I will disagree with one point you've made. The current government isn't unelected. In the UK we vote for a party not a person, and reshuffles and changes of PM without a general election have been a factor of UK political life for a very long time. I'd love to see that change, but it's the system we currently have, and under that system this government is as elected as any other.

gpderetta 10y ago

clear mandate to what exactly? Hard brexit? Why would you assume that would be the preferred outcome of a majority of the population?

raesene6 10y ago
Clear mandate to achieve the aims campaigned on. A large part of the the brexit campaign revolved around control of immigration. Now control of immigration predicates leaving the single market as one of the principles of that is freedom of movement, so there's literally no way to achieve the stated brexit campaign goals without leaving the single market. I didn't say anything about the majority of the population I said people who voted in favour of the referendum. The reality of our electoral system is that you just need the majority of voters, not population (well unless you're scotland in the 70's that is) EDIT : in case anyone wants to argue that immigration wasn't a key part of the leave campaign... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referendum-reality-check-leave-campaign-promises https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referend... a key pledge related to immigration directly and another was closely associated

dragonwriter 10y ago

> To me a referendum is a clearer mandate than any general election It's potentially a clearer mandate on, at most, exactly the question asked in the referendum, but it's not a mandate for any particular method of implementing it nor is it a mandate for any party's or leader's judgement in pursuing it, nor is it even a mandate for any choice on balancing that one priority against others.

raesene6 10y ago
but the implementation of "control the borders" (a key brexit tenet) requires leaving the single market, the EU has made it crystal clear that you can't remove the right to freedom of movement whilst remaining in the union. EDIT : in case anyone wants to argue that immigration wasn't a key part of the leave campaign... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referendum-reality-check-leave-campaign-promises https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referend... a key pledge related to immigration directly and another was closely associated
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > a key brexit tenet A majority of a majority is not necessarily itself a majority, which is why a referendum -- especially one narrowly approved -- provides no mandate beyond the question asked, including on "key tenets" of the campaign for the position that wins that are, themselves, not included in the question asked.
  - raesene6 10y ago
    Let me ask you a question, do you honestly believe that control of immigration wasn't a key reason that people voted for the leave campaign?
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      I believe that it was a key factor for many voters, as, for many of those same voters, was the belief that it could be done while retaining the benefits of the common market.

rusk 10y ago

I have voted in a great many referendums here in Ireland. They typically arise when a constitutional amendment is required, and the language in them is pretty clear and unequivocal. You are presented with the actual literal constitutional changes and whether they are acceptable or not. Usually (but far less so than I would like) there is a public debate about the pros and cons of the proposed changes. The discussion isn't merely polarised, sometimes you will have people who agree with the general principle of the change, but object in terms of the actual proposed amendment. Perhaps on the grounds that it doesn't go far enough. Perhaps on the grounds that the specific wording leaves open other dangerous consequences. As far as I understand it, the Brexit poll presented voters with the options "Remain" and "Leave". There wasn't any definitive statement on what "Leave" means. Of course it literally means "Hard Brexit" but I don't believe this is what most people had in mind, nor were they adequately briefed on the consequences. The connection to Article 50 of the EU constitution as a means to "Leave" seems to have been made post hoc. If you dispute that most British people made this decision knowingly I urge you to read Dominic Cummings' gleeful account of how he believes he captured and manipulated the Brexit vote [0] (it's a fascinating read by the way, and I do have a huge amount of respect for the guy, though his underlying motives seem somewhat veiled). I agree it seems unlikely at this stage a second referendum would yield a different result. We are definitely in one of these "it's going to get worse before it gets better" situations. However, you do have an unelected government interpreting the meaning of "Leave" and presenting a vision of what post-Brexit Britain should look like, and that in particular is what's worrying. [0] https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/on-the-referendum-20-the-campaign-physics-and-data-science-vote-leaves-voter-intention-collection-system-vics-now-available-for-all/ https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/on-the-refe...

raesene6 10y ago
oh no I'm not suggesting that people knew what they were getting into in full, but then given that this is entirely unchartered territory I don't see how that could have worked really. This has never been done before and therefore no-one knows what it means. Both sides of the campaign, in my view, heavily had the Fear Uncertainty and Doubt angles playing, but then that's no different to most/all UK elections (just look at the scottish referendum for another example) However what I do think is that the leave campaign rhetoric (which won) largely revolved around border control and immigration, and any outcome that didn't involve a change here wouldn't be respecting the "will of the people". It's been clear since the vote that the EU (rightly in my opinion) won't budge on this point so the PM had to either do what she's done or basically disregard the result of the referendum. I will disagree with one point you've made. The current government isn't unelected. In the UK we vote for a party not a person, and reshuffles and changes of PM without a general election have been a factor of UK political life for a very long time. I'd love to see that change, but it's the system we currently have, and under that system this government is as elected as any other.