4 ms·

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 c

by 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.
- rusk 10y ago
  It's completely my fault, using the terms incorrectly, but you've misunderstood my point. Thus neatly illustrating how slippery language can be. From a legal and constitutional standpoint your current government is indeed "elected" (as is the present "minority government" here in Ireland). However I would posit that from a moral standpoint there should be another election. The public mandate imparted by Brexit is murky at best and necessitates a return to the polls. The most obvious means to that is a general election. I think taking the campaign rhetoric as some kind of instruction is undemocratic in the extreme. Also taking opinion polls is obviously flawed. They are instructive but if you're taking them into account, how can you ignore more recent polls that show a gradual drift towards "Remain"? I suppose you "could" have a second referendum where the specific terms of "Leave" were specified ... but I can't see that going down too well as a suggestion.
  - raesene6 10y ago
    Ah well any discussion of morals and politics (as practiced in most countries) is unlikely to go well ;o) The problem I see with reverting to a general election is that unless all parties campaign purely on an exact list of what they will and won't do with regards to the EU, the mandate provided would be no clearer than the one derived from the referendum. A general election would mess the EU issue in with things like labour's infighting and legacy issues with the lib dems (a lot of their traditional vote don't seem to trust them after their deal with the previous tory government) The reality is that a general election campaign would involve more campaign rhetoric and politicians would be just as tied as they usually are to keeping promises after the fact (i.e. not at all) For me, whilst the precision of what was being voted for is unclear, the idea that a result after a win for the leave campaign wouldn't involve some kind of change to immigration policy is just unbelievable and because of the binary nature of the decision, todays outcome was inevitable.
    - rusk 10y ago
      Indeed, such an election could not be seen as an interpretation of the will of the people purely on Brexit. But Brexit does represent such a seismic event in recent British history that the British people do deserve a say in the government that leads them on from it. You could for instance see a party campaigning on a platform of making government more democratic for instance, which wouldn't have anything directly to do with Brexit but might give piece of mind as you move onward into the abyss. Of course with the actual state of all the other parties at the moment (SNP excluded) it's hard to imagine a wildly different result to what you have right now, but I guess in a way it's "the principle of the thing".

by rusk 10y ago

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.

rusk 10y ago
It's completely my fault, using the terms incorrectly, but you've misunderstood my point. Thus neatly illustrating how slippery language can be. From a legal and constitutional standpoint your current government is indeed "elected" (as is the present "minority government" here in Ireland). However I would posit that from a moral standpoint there should be another election. The public mandate imparted by Brexit is murky at best and necessitates a return to the polls. The most obvious means to that is a general election. I think taking the campaign rhetoric as some kind of instruction is undemocratic in the extreme. Also taking opinion polls is obviously flawed. They are instructive but if you're taking them into account, how can you ignore more recent polls that show a gradual drift towards "Remain"? I suppose you "could" have a second referendum where the specific terms of "Leave" were specified ... but I can't see that going down too well as a suggestion.
- raesene6 10y ago
  Ah well any discussion of morals and politics (as practiced in most countries) is unlikely to go well ;o) The problem I see with reverting to a general election is that unless all parties campaign purely on an exact list of what they will and won't do with regards to the EU, the mandate provided would be no clearer than the one derived from the referendum. A general election would mess the EU issue in with things like labour's infighting and legacy issues with the lib dems (a lot of their traditional vote don't seem to trust them after their deal with the previous tory government) The reality is that a general election campaign would involve more campaign rhetoric and politicians would be just as tied as they usually are to keeping promises after the fact (i.e. not at all) For me, whilst the precision of what was being voted for is unclear, the idea that a result after a win for the leave campaign wouldn't involve some kind of change to immigration policy is just unbelievable and because of the binary nature of the decision, todays outcome was inevitable.
  - rusk 10y ago
    Indeed, such an election could not be seen as an interpretation of the will of the people purely on Brexit. But Brexit does represent such a seismic event in recent British history that the British people do deserve a say in the government that leads them on from it. You could for instance see a party campaigning on a platform of making government more democratic for instance, which wouldn't have anything directly to do with Brexit but might give piece of mind as you move onward into the abyss. Of course with the actual state of all the other parties at the moment (SNP excluded) it's hard to imagine a wildly different result to what you have right now, but I guess in a way it's "the principle of the thing".