12 ms·

Just an outsider's opinion, but I think that they had a vote. They probably should not have voted "Leave", but they did. So now you have to get on with the busi

Just an outsider's opinion, but I think that they had a vote. They probably should not have voted "Leave", but they did. So now you have to get on with the business of implementing the will of the people. It might come out just as the author has outlined, or it might not be that bad, or it might be far worse than even the author has envisioned. The thing is, whatever the consequences and benefits are, they are consequences and benefits for which the people voted. I think as democratic stewards and public servants, the only thing you can do is implement the Brexit to the best of your ability. Even in the face of the many grave personal reservations you may hold as to the wisdom of that Brexit.

Sniperfish 8y ago
What good is a vote if the choices aren't honestly presented?
- jlavine 8y ago
  What vote in any democracy has not been surrounded by misrepresentations by advocates of different sides? There was no censorship in the Brexit campaign. All sides were free to make their case for months during the campaign. There were plenty of false and misleading claims on both sides, as well as attempted debunking of these claims on the opposing sides. The Brexit debates were far more thorough, fair, and civil than anything you ever see in the US or most other democratic countries. The notion that the electorate shouldn't have been trusted to sort through all of this, and requires a set of true facts cultivated by some elite group, undermines the entire premise of democracy.
karmajunkie 8y ago
The problem is that it wasn't a legitimate vote, free off outside influence. The Russian troll factory was hard at work influencing the outcome of that referendum. So what's the actual will of the people?
- ThomPete 8y ago
  You need to prove that. It hasent been.
  - andruby 8y ago
    Proving in court will be hard. But surely you've seen the smoke?
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      Then there is really no case. Even smoke need a place of origin if you can't even point to that and show how it was done not just by circumstantial evidence but actually shoving the data to support it then it's just guessing, in this case highly biased guessing. Brexit is no different than what is seen in many other places throughout Europe, a fight against globalization so unless Russia has developed some magical abilities to mind control large parts of Europe and the US which no other nation in this world is able to copy then I would say that the smoke you see is our own.
- jerf 8y ago
  By that standard, voting is impossible. There was plenty of outside influence in favor of Remain, too, including the President of the US campaigning in favor of Remain and threatening trade war actions if they did Brexit, and I don't think it would exactly a fair characterization to say that the EU itself quietly stood by and waited for the will of the people of the UK to be revealed. Votes will never be hermetically sealed from the outside world.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    The apparent spending violations are probably a stronger case for the vote being tainted.
- vinceguidry 8y ago
  Outside influence doesn't invalidate a national referendum. If Russians convinced Brits to leave the EU, that still means that Brits wanted to leave the EU. I'm not saying to let them do as they wish, but on the face of it, you can't call it a perversion of democracy. It's a perversion of communication networks.
pjc50 8y ago
> implementing the will of the people > best of your ability. Leaving aside the plain lack of ability from those running the show, as written this is a mandate for the "Norway option" - EEA and free movement, ECJ etc, but not actually in the EU. This is basically as close to the status quo as possible except we'd give up our ability to vote on EU rules and just have to accept them. However, when this is suggested, a whole bunch of Brexiteers respond with outrage.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Leaving aside the plain lack of ability from those running the show, as written this is a mandate for the "Norway option" - EEA and free movement, ECJ etc, but not actually in the EU I'm pretty sure opposition to free movement was a key underpinning of Brexit support, so I don't think the Brexit vote can be seen as a mandate for the “Norway option”. Also, not sure that that's an option that would actually be in the table for Britain; from the European side, it makes a lot of sense to support that as an option on the way (deeper) to into the European system, but not on the way out.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    > I'm pretty sure opposition to free movement was a key underpinning of Brexit support Probably, but was it on the ballot paper? No. Was it in the manifesto? (which manifesto of the multiple Leave campaigns, or the Conservative 2017 one?) This is why we're in a mess, for every option people appear saying that it's not what they voted for.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      And it's true. For every option, there are people who, when they voted Leave, weren't voting for that. So you have a slight majority who voted Leave. But they were (in their own minds) voting for different flavors of Leave. You don't have a majority behind any particular kind of Leave. Therefore there is no possible way to do this that will satisfy the majority of people. That's going to be problematic.
andruby 8y ago
You should ask the people the same question again, now that they've had some time to inform themselves of what "leaving the EU" really means. I wouldn't bet any money on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the majority would now vote Remain.
- adamrezich 8y ago
  Why "should" the Brexit referendum get the special privilege of a "do-over?" I have no idea how the law works over there but surely that would set some sort of terrible precedent? I have zero skin in that game but the idea that people can espouse the virtues of democracy one minute only to make endless excuses as to why the result of a wholly democratic vote is wrong, invalid, or otherwise "deserves" a do-over the next minute makes zero sense to me as an American. Either you trust the will of the people or you don't.
  - wilsonnb2 8y ago
    Nobody should trust the will of the people. That's why we have representative democracies and not direct democracies. The Brexit referendum shouldn't get a special "do-over". Instead, the result should be ignored because leaving the EU is a bad idea regardless of the people's will. I'm sure a majority of the people have many other terrible ideas that they agree with, especially when you only need 51% of those who care enough to vote to constitute a "majority". Trusting the will of the people is the philosophy of a lynch mob, not a government.
    - adamrezich 8y ago
      I agree completely w.r.t. representative democracy vs. mob rule... yet, "the result should be ignored because leaving the EU is a bad idea regardless of the people's will" makes zero sense to me. I have seen arguments for and against Brexit, so where does this authoritative "Brexit would definitely be bad and any result other than Remain should be ignored" come from?
      - wilsonnb2 8y ago
Symmetry 8y ago
Two things. First, the UK is a representative democracy ruled by Parliament and if Parliament decides they don't want to do something they don't have to and the way for the people to indicate their displeasure is to elect new people to Parliament. Second, the will of the people is a nebulous thing. Brexit won with slightly more than half the vote but that was in 2016. Since then many Brexit voters have died, many new people on the Remain side have come of age, and people have learned new things. It's very likely that if they had another referendum now people would vote to stay in the EU.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
  It is also very likely that, if a new referendum reversed the result, it would do so with an equally slight margin to the original referendum. And that would solve nothing. We can't have referendums until we get it "right" (or until we get a large enough margin). As to the change in the public opinion, polls have shown that many people who voted Remain don't actually want a second referendum, they just want to "get on with it" and implement the results of the first one. My intuition is that the vast majority do so out of a misguided belief that a democratically taken decision cannot be overtaken democratically, that not implementing the result of the referendum (even if they disagree with it) is undemocratic and that parliament is obliged to follow the results of the referendum even though it was not binding (i.e. they don't understand the words "non-binding"). In other words, they misguidedly believe that the democratic thing is to go ahead with the Brexit, regardless of any circumstances, changed or not. And they are prepared to fight for democracy with all their might, even if they don't really understand it. Therefore many would probably vote "Leave" in a second referendum, thinking they were doing the right and principled thing. And if the decision was reversed, these same Remainers would descend on the streets and riot, and demand the heads of the Enemies of the People who dared oppose themselves to their will. In short, having another referendum now would create even more chaos than the first. For the record, I'm an EU immigrant to the UK and Brexit seriously spoils my ointment. I'm as anti-Brexit as it's possible to be. However, I don't think a new referendum is a solution. I don't think there is any solution- no realistic ones anyway. The country put a pistol to its temple and pulled the trigger. Now we're in the time between the gun having gone off and the bullet hitting. There is no turning back :(
ardillaroja 8y ago
But let's say the 48% that voted to remain in the EU had grown to say 55% that didn't like the sound of the Brexit deal being hashed out and would prefer the status quo. Would it be reasonable for our politicians to try and use the levers of government to reverse course to represent the new will of the people? At the end of the day I don't think the public were qualified to answer the question as it was posed. There were too many unknowns and too much false information. We elect people to represent us because we believe they are qualified to do so. There's a reason we'd never see this in a referendum: What should the income tax rate be for UK citizens? [ ] 0% [ ] 10% [ ] 20% [ ] 40%
- lmm 8y ago
  > But let's say the 48% that voted to remain in the EU had grown to say 55% that didn't like the sound of the Brexit deal being hashed out and would prefer the status quo. Would it be reasonable for our politicians to try and use the levers of government to reverse course to represent the new will of the people? You can't keep asking the people until they give the answer you want and then seize on that. Holding another referendum after say 10 years have passed seems reasonable. > At the end of the day I don't think the public were qualified to answer the question as it was posed. There were too many unknowns and too much false information. We elect people to represent us because we believe they are qualified to do so. I agree. But, Cameron having chosen to hold the referendum, his party is duty-bound to implement its results.
  - BerislavLopac 8y ago
    > his party is duty-bound to implement its results And what are the results? To leave with no deal? In any case it is NOT legally bound. But it acts as it was.
    - lmm 8y ago
      > And what are the results? To leave with no deal? To leave the European Union one way or another, since that was the question they asked and the answer they got. With whatever deal they believe best for the country and its people, which may or may not end up being no deal. > In any case it is NOT legally bound. But it acts as it was. The government's legal obligations come from its duty to the people, not the other way around.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Every other time nations have had disappointing or unplanned referendum results, such as those nations that require referenda on EU treaties, there's been a second vote by way of confirmation. I don't think anyone has ever had a third attempt "to get the right answer". :) Ireland voted against the Nice treaty in 2001, 54% against. A year later 62% voted in favour of it on a higher turnout. It is inconceivable that a second EU referendum in the UK would vote leave.
- ttepasse 8y ago
  So, what happened in the year between the referenda? Yes, the treaty was changed for the Irish. Ireland then voted about the changed treaty, not the original one.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    If they'd gone for a second referendum the UK could have negotiated from a position of relative strength ("guys, we have to offer them something, they voted to leave"). The government might have come out the other side looking relatively good, like Mrs Thatcher's after renegotiating the rebate. It certainly wouldn't have been worse than this farce.
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  Same with the Scotland referendum, iirc that was also close. After the Brexit vote, fuck yes does Scotland want to separate from the UK.
DanBC 8y ago
Don't forget there's considerable interest in the funding and behaviour of the leave campaign, who appear to have broken several laws. Or that under 18s weren't allowed to vote, even though they're going to be disproportionately affected.
craigsmansion 8y ago
> but I think that they had a vote. Norway also had a vote on the EU. I was also close. "No" won. What Norway didn't implement was a "winner takes all" approach. They're not in the EU. They're not in the Customs union. They are in the EEA. Everybody wins, everybody loses, but nobody feels like their wishes have been completely ignored. There is no reason the results of the Brexit referendum couldn't have been interpreted like that. It's not like there's only one seat that can be filled by one person and there has to be a loser. It's not an election.
- pjc50 8y ago
  I think for a lot of participants there does have to be a "loser" - it's been turned into a "culture war". That's where things like refusing to accept ECJ jurisdiction seem to be coming from. That's why there's such a nasty edge to the whole thing, and such a refusal to engage in compromises that might move the thing forwards.
  - lmm 8y ago
    I don't think it's a case of "having to be a loser". Rather the nasty edge is coming from a loss of confidence that the (upper-middle-class, college-educated) political class will represent the people - and not without reason, given how our political and social elites (still!) dismiss any concern about immigration as nothing but stupid racists, as seen in this very article.
    - pjc50 8y ago
      So what are the non-racist fact-based concerns about EU freedom of movement migration? Why is leave voting highly correlated with not actually having high levels of EU migrants in the area? To forestall the public services argument, to a large extent the public services are made out of immigrants, especially in health and social care.
- ardillaroja 8y ago
  I'm no fan of May and this is probably giving her too much credit (and oversimplifying) but is it possible she's nailing this? Her "Brexit means brexit" and "No deal is better than a bad deal" rhetoric has kept the hardline Brexiteer tories from throwing her overboard. But maybe after a 'long, hard fight' she gives a theatrical sigh and accepts the Norway deal. Everyone gives a resigned shrug and we don't have country-wide riots.
tigershark 8y ago
Will of the people? European citizens, even with the permanent residence that you can get after 5 years of Uk residence, could not vote. Uk citizens living abroad for more than 2 or 3 years couldn’t vote. Indians and all the other from commonwealth could vote. Indians, without having the slightest idea of what is Europe, voted en masse for leave. Obviously the two other groups would have voted for remain. So there was no “will of the people” expressed, it was just a rigged referendum.
BerislavLopac 8y ago
THERE WAS NO VOTE. First, the famous referendum was advisory, and in no way obligated the government to do anything. Technically it was just slightly serious than a public opinion poll. Second, the question was too unclear, and it was not clear what will happen in the case of a "leave" vote. Third, the result was too inconclusive -- a 4% difference is too small to base such strong decisions on, especially after such a short campaign with so many irregularities as this one. [0] And finally, even if the result required the government to act on it, there was no provision that it has to happen so soon. For a serious "brexit" there should be more time to negotiate and reach a solid deal. [0] http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=cdl-ad(2007)008-e http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pd...
- adamrezich 8y ago
  Out of curiosity, can you envision saying the result was too close to call, the campaign was too short, the public was too uninformed, etc., if the result of the referendum was "Remain?"
  - pjc50 8y ago
    The rightwing press would absolutely be doing that on your behalf if it was a narrow loss. But - and this is the important thing - we wouldn't now be discussing stockpiling food and medicine.
    - adamrezich 8y ago
      Why did you say "on your behalf?" I don't identify as right-wing and I am not a citizen of the UK
- jlavine 8y ago
  But Parliament did vote to pursue Brexit and trigger Article 50 following the referendum. You're right that the referendum did not legally compel Parliament to this vote, but many MPs thought that it ethically compelled them to it, and for good reason: The entire premise of the referendum was that Parliament would act on the results. The referendum didn't just pop up like a random opinion poll; it was years in the making, came about as a result of political negotiations, and followed a high-profile months-long campaign. Elections were just held following the Article 50 vote precisely to give voters a second chance to express their view on Brexit, and this resulted in maintenance of a pro-Brexit Tory government. By "irregularities", you seem to imply corruption in the conduct of the referendum. Which exactly are you referring to? Your link provides no guidance.

Sniperfish 8y ago

What good is a vote if the choices aren't honestly presented?

jlavine 8y ago
What vote in any democracy has not been surrounded by misrepresentations by advocates of different sides? There was no censorship in the Brexit campaign. All sides were free to make their case for months during the campaign. There were plenty of false and misleading claims on both sides, as well as attempted debunking of these claims on the opposing sides. The Brexit debates were far more thorough, fair, and civil than anything you ever see in the US or most other democratic countries. The notion that the electorate shouldn't have been trusted to sort through all of this, and requires a set of true facts cultivated by some elite group, undermines the entire premise of democracy.

karmajunkie 8y ago

The problem is that it wasn't a legitimate vote, free off outside influence. The Russian troll factory was hard at work influencing the outcome of that referendum. So what's the actual will of the people?

ThomPete 8y ago
You need to prove that. It hasent been.
- andruby 8y ago
  Proving in court will be hard. But surely you've seen the smoke?
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Then there is really no case. Even smoke need a place of origin if you can't even point to that and show how it was done not just by circumstantial evidence but actually shoving the data to support it then it's just guessing, in this case highly biased guessing. Brexit is no different than what is seen in many other places throughout Europe, a fight against globalization so unless Russia has developed some magical abilities to mind control large parts of Europe and the US which no other nation in this world is able to copy then I would say that the smoke you see is our own.
jerf 8y ago
By that standard, voting is impossible. There was plenty of outside influence in favor of Remain, too, including the President of the US campaigning in favor of Remain and threatening trade war actions if they did Brexit, and I don't think it would exactly a fair characterization to say that the EU itself quietly stood by and waited for the will of the people of the UK to be revealed. Votes will never be hermetically sealed from the outside world.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  The apparent spending violations are probably a stronger case for the vote being tainted.
vinceguidry 8y ago
Outside influence doesn't invalidate a national referendum. If Russians convinced Brits to leave the EU, that still means that Brits wanted to leave the EU. I'm not saying to let them do as they wish, but on the face of it, you can't call it a perversion of democracy. It's a perversion of communication networks.

pjc50 8y ago

> implementing the will of the people > best of your ability. Leaving aside the plain lack of ability from those running the show, as written this is a mandate for the "Norway option" - EEA and free movement, ECJ etc, but not actually in the EU. This is basically as close to the status quo as possible except we'd give up our ability to vote on EU rules and just have to accept them. However, when this is suggested, a whole bunch of Brexiteers respond with outrage.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Leaving aside the plain lack of ability from those running the show, as written this is a mandate for the "Norway option" - EEA and free movement, ECJ etc, but not actually in the EU I'm pretty sure opposition to free movement was a key underpinning of Brexit support, so I don't think the Brexit vote can be seen as a mandate for the “Norway option”. Also, not sure that that's an option that would actually be in the table for Britain; from the European side, it makes a lot of sense to support that as an option on the way (deeper) to into the European system, but not on the way out.
- pjc50 8y ago
  > I'm pretty sure opposition to free movement was a key underpinning of Brexit support Probably, but was it on the ballot paper? No. Was it in the manifesto? (which manifesto of the multiple Leave campaigns, or the Conservative 2017 one?) This is why we're in a mess, for every option people appear saying that it's not what they voted for.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    And it's true. For every option, there are people who, when they voted Leave, weren't voting for that. So you have a slight majority who voted Leave. But they were (in their own minds) voting for different flavors of Leave. You don't have a majority behind any particular kind of Leave. Therefore there is no possible way to do this that will satisfy the majority of people. That's going to be problematic.

andruby 8y ago

You should ask the people the same question again, now that they've had some time to inform themselves of what "leaving the EU" really means. I wouldn't bet any money on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the majority would now vote Remain.

adamrezich 8y ago
Why "should" the Brexit referendum get the special privilege of a "do-over?" I have no idea how the law works over there but surely that would set some sort of terrible precedent? I have zero skin in that game but the idea that people can espouse the virtues of democracy one minute only to make endless excuses as to why the result of a wholly democratic vote is wrong, invalid, or otherwise "deserves" a do-over the next minute makes zero sense to me as an American. Either you trust the will of the people or you don't.
- wilsonnb2 8y ago
  Nobody should trust the will of the people. That's why we have representative democracies and not direct democracies. The Brexit referendum shouldn't get a special "do-over". Instead, the result should be ignored because leaving the EU is a bad idea regardless of the people's will. I'm sure a majority of the people have many other terrible ideas that they agree with, especially when you only need 51% of those who care enough to vote to constitute a "majority". Trusting the will of the people is the philosophy of a lynch mob, not a government.
  - adamrezich 8y ago
    I agree completely w.r.t. representative democracy vs. mob rule... yet, "the result should be ignored because leaving the EU is a bad idea regardless of the people's will" makes zero sense to me. I have seen arguments for and against Brexit, so where does this authoritative "Brexit would definitely be bad and any result other than Remain should be ignored" come from?
    - wilsonnb2 8y ago

Symmetry 8y ago

Two things. First, the UK is a representative democracy ruled by Parliament and if Parliament decides they don't want to do something they don't have to and the way for the people to indicate their displeasure is to elect new people to Parliament. Second, the will of the people is a nebulous thing. Brexit won with slightly more than half the vote but that was in 2016. Since then many Brexit voters have died, many new people on the Remain side have come of age, and people have learned new things. It's very likely that if they had another referendum now people would vote to stay in the EU.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
It is also very likely that, if a new referendum reversed the result, it would do so with an equally slight margin to the original referendum. And that would solve nothing. We can't have referendums until we get it "right" (or until we get a large enough margin). As to the change in the public opinion, polls have shown that many people who voted Remain don't actually want a second referendum, they just want to "get on with it" and implement the results of the first one. My intuition is that the vast majority do so out of a misguided belief that a democratically taken decision cannot be overtaken democratically, that not implementing the result of the referendum (even if they disagree with it) is undemocratic and that parliament is obliged to follow the results of the referendum even though it was not binding (i.e. they don't understand the words "non-binding"). In other words, they misguidedly believe that the democratic thing is to go ahead with the Brexit, regardless of any circumstances, changed or not. And they are prepared to fight for democracy with all their might, even if they don't really understand it. Therefore many would probably vote "Leave" in a second referendum, thinking they were doing the right and principled thing. And if the decision was reversed, these same Remainers would descend on the streets and riot, and demand the heads of the Enemies of the People who dared oppose themselves to their will. In short, having another referendum now would create even more chaos than the first. For the record, I'm an EU immigrant to the UK and Brexit seriously spoils my ointment. I'm as anti-Brexit as it's possible to be. However, I don't think a new referendum is a solution. I don't think there is any solution- no realistic ones anyway. The country put a pistol to its temple and pulled the trigger. Now we're in the time between the gun having gone off and the bullet hitting. There is no turning back :(

ardillaroja 8y ago

But let's say the 48% that voted to remain in the EU had grown to say 55% that didn't like the sound of the Brexit deal being hashed out and would prefer the status quo. Would it be reasonable for our politicians to try and use the levers of government to reverse course to represent the new will of the people? At the end of the day I don't think the public were qualified to answer the question as it was posed. There were too many unknowns and too much false information. We elect people to represent us because we believe they are qualified to do so. There's a reason we'd never see this in a referendum: What should the income tax rate be for UK citizens? [ ] 0% [ ] 10% [ ] 20% [ ] 40%

lmm 8y ago
> But let's say the 48% that voted to remain in the EU had grown to say 55% that didn't like the sound of the Brexit deal being hashed out and would prefer the status quo. Would it be reasonable for our politicians to try and use the levers of government to reverse course to represent the new will of the people? You can't keep asking the people until they give the answer you want and then seize on that. Holding another referendum after say 10 years have passed seems reasonable. > At the end of the day I don't think the public were qualified to answer the question as it was posed. There were too many unknowns and too much false information. We elect people to represent us because we believe they are qualified to do so. I agree. But, Cameron having chosen to hold the referendum, his party is duty-bound to implement its results.
- BerislavLopac 8y ago
  > his party is duty-bound to implement its results And what are the results? To leave with no deal? In any case it is NOT legally bound. But it acts as it was.
  - lmm 8y ago
    > And what are the results? To leave with no deal? To leave the European Union one way or another, since that was the question they asked and the answer they got. With whatever deal they believe best for the country and its people, which may or may not end up being no deal. > In any case it is NOT legally bound. But it acts as it was. The government's legal obligations come from its duty to the people, not the other way around.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

Every other time nations have had disappointing or unplanned referendum results, such as those nations that require referenda on EU treaties, there's been a second vote by way of confirmation. I don't think anyone has ever had a third attempt "to get the right answer". :) Ireland voted against the Nice treaty in 2001, 54% against. A year later 62% voted in favour of it on a higher turnout. It is inconceivable that a second EU referendum in the UK would vote leave.

ttepasse 8y ago
So, what happened in the year between the referenda? Yes, the treaty was changed for the Irish. Ireland then voted about the changed treaty, not the original one.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  If they'd gone for a second referendum the UK could have negotiated from a position of relative strength ("guys, we have to offer them something, they voted to leave"). The government might have come out the other side looking relatively good, like Mrs Thatcher's after renegotiating the rebate. It certainly wouldn't have been worse than this farce.
Cthulhu_ 8y ago
Same with the Scotland referendum, iirc that was also close. After the Brexit vote, fuck yes does Scotland want to separate from the UK.

DanBC 8y ago

Don't forget there's considerable interest in the funding and behaviour of the leave campaign, who appear to have broken several laws. Or that under 18s weren't allowed to vote, even though they're going to be disproportionately affected.

craigsmansion 8y ago

> but I think that they had a vote. Norway also had a vote on the EU. I was also close. "No" won. What Norway didn't implement was a "winner takes all" approach. They're not in the EU. They're not in the Customs union. They are in the EEA. Everybody wins, everybody loses, but nobody feels like their wishes have been completely ignored. There is no reason the results of the Brexit referendum couldn't have been interpreted like that. It's not like there's only one seat that can be filled by one person and there has to be a loser. It's not an election.

pjc50 8y ago
I think for a lot of participants there does have to be a "loser" - it's been turned into a "culture war". That's where things like refusing to accept ECJ jurisdiction seem to be coming from. That's why there's such a nasty edge to the whole thing, and such a refusal to engage in compromises that might move the thing forwards.
- lmm 8y ago
  I don't think it's a case of "having to be a loser". Rather the nasty edge is coming from a loss of confidence that the (upper-middle-class, college-educated) political class will represent the people - and not without reason, given how our political and social elites (still!) dismiss any concern about immigration as nothing but stupid racists, as seen in this very article.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    So what are the non-racist fact-based concerns about EU freedom of movement migration? Why is leave voting highly correlated with not actually having high levels of EU migrants in the area? To forestall the public services argument, to a large extent the public services are made out of immigrants, especially in health and social care.
ardillaroja 8y ago
I'm no fan of May and this is probably giving her too much credit (and oversimplifying) but is it possible she's nailing this? Her "Brexit means brexit" and "No deal is better than a bad deal" rhetoric has kept the hardline Brexiteer tories from throwing her overboard. But maybe after a 'long, hard fight' she gives a theatrical sigh and accepts the Norway deal. Everyone gives a resigned shrug and we don't have country-wide riots.

tigershark 8y ago

Will of the people? European citizens, even with the permanent residence that you can get after 5 years of Uk residence, could not vote. Uk citizens living abroad for more than 2 or 3 years couldn’t vote. Indians and all the other from commonwealth could vote. Indians, without having the slightest idea of what is Europe, voted en masse for leave. Obviously the two other groups would have voted for remain. So there was no “will of the people” expressed, it was just a rigged referendum.

BerislavLopac 8y ago

THERE WAS NO VOTE. First, the famous referendum was advisory, and in no way obligated the government to do anything. Technically it was just slightly serious than a public opinion poll. Second, the question was too unclear, and it was not clear what will happen in the case of a "leave" vote. Third, the result was too inconclusive -- a 4% difference is too small to base such strong decisions on, especially after such a short campaign with so many irregularities as this one. [0] And finally, even if the result required the government to act on it, there was no provision that it has to happen so soon. For a serious "brexit" there should be more time to negotiate and reach a solid deal. [0] http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=cdl-ad(2007)008-e http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pd...

adamrezich 8y ago
Out of curiosity, can you envision saying the result was too close to call, the campaign was too short, the public was too uninformed, etc., if the result of the referendum was "Remain?"
- pjc50 8y ago
  The rightwing press would absolutely be doing that on your behalf if it was a narrow loss. But - and this is the important thing - we wouldn't now be discussing stockpiling food and medicine.
  - adamrezich 8y ago
    Why did you say "on your behalf?" I don't identify as right-wing and I am not a citizen of the UK
jlavine 8y ago
But Parliament did vote to pursue Brexit and trigger Article 50 following the referendum. You're right that the referendum did not legally compel Parliament to this vote, but many MPs thought that it ethically compelled them to it, and for good reason: The entire premise of the referendum was that Parliament would act on the results. The referendum didn't just pop up like a random opinion poll; it was years in the making, came about as a result of political negotiations, and followed a high-profile months-long campaign. Elections were just held following the Article 50 vote precisely to give voters a second chance to express their view on Brexit, and this resulted in maintenance of a pro-Brexit Tory government. By "irregularities", you seem to imply corruption in the conduct of the referendum. Which exactly are you referring to? Your link provides no guidance.