6 ms·

What I don't understand (and I am very ignorant!) is why the initial vote can't just be looked at as a stage in the decision process. Time has gone on, and the

What I don't understand (and I am very ignorant!) is why the initial vote can't just be looked at as a stage in the decision process. Time has gone on, and the public has become more educated as to what the true effects of Brexit will be. Even leaving aside the question of how dishonest the pro-Brexit arguments were. It just seems reasonable to have another vote.

kodablah 8y ago
> It just seems reasonable to have another vote. It seems absolutely unreasonable to me. It's hard to measure how certain tactics influenced the vote on either side. The voting process needs to be done with confidence and we should not so easily assume our peers are misinformed and/or so easily swayed. The efforts put forth by legitimate actors to campaign for their cause goes for not, as does confidence in the democratic process, when the outcome is just thrown away.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  The voting process does need to be done with confidence. In the first vote Leave were referred to the police for illegality, and they still haven't provided a full account of their funding - at least some of which seems very likely to have come from foreign sources. This is explicitly and very clearly not legal, because foreign money has no business trying to influence the vote in a sovereign British matter. So a People's Vote would be the first honest vote.
  - moduspol 8y ago
    Cases like these could be made after any election ever, and we're going down a dark road by presuming this time is any different.
MatekCopatek 8y ago
Because this would imply a public referendum is impotent - if you don't like the outcome, you can just keep campaigning and try again later.
- zimpenfish 8y ago
  It was a non-binding referendum - they could have “carefully examined” the result for a week and then tossed it in the trash, politely declining the “advice” of the populace.
  - refurb 8y ago
    Oh yes, that would have gone over incredibly well.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      As if what they did instead has gone over any better.
      - refurb 8y ago
        Bungling the split up a union is far better than ignoring the will of your constituents.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        Assuming that a narrow result on a yes/no vote on a general concept means that the “will of your constituents” falls on one side of a complex policy issue irrespective of details of the concrete policies embedded in the available concrete realization of the broad concept that were not known at the time of the vote is quite ludicrous, even without the side that ultimately won using specific concrete descriptions as a sales pitch that conflict with that reality. That's especially true when equally non-binding but current polling of your constituents on the same question shows that the opposite side quite likely leads now that the concrete options are known. It's a well-established British Constitutional principal that a Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament. Why would one view the public will ant differently, even if it were fully informed?
        refurb 8y ago
noir_lord 8y ago
It can but no politician wants the right wing press to go all "WILL OF THE PEOPLE" on them. It was a non-binding referendum, a glorified opinion poll and that was before we found out about the lying, the financial irregularities and external interference. Shrugs, I'm resigned to whatever happens happening at this point.
severino 8y ago
And then, if this second voting yields a different result, shouldn't they hold a third referendum afterwards? And maybe a few more, as you can always say the last one was not the genuine one.
- aurailious 8y ago
  Replace "should" with "could" and you'd be right. Each vote would be genuine if its conudcted according to law.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - sparkie 8y ago
    If there's always another vote, no vote needs to be implemented. What's the point of voting then? Kids learn at an early age that when you lose, you lose. They usually grow out of "best of 3" or "best of 5" before age 10. Even a 5 year old knows that "best of 2" doesn't work.
    - vkou 8y ago
      A vote is not a suicide pact that binds you to a decision from now, until the heat death of the universe.
    - aurailious 8y ago
      > If there's always another vote, no vote needs to be implemented. What's the point of voting then? Most democracies have regular periods where you vote. Are you suggesting that since there will be a new US Presidential election in 2020 that Trump is now no longer legitimate? How would that circumstance be any different that a referdendum? Voting isn't wrong. What is the implication of you trying to tie the institution of democracy to childhood antics? Are you suggesting that a vote is no different that chance? That the opinion's of people that change are no longer legitimate?
    - stordoff 8y ago
beefield 8y ago
I think the issue is that once you have had a referendum with outright dishonest arguments and likely manipulated by foreign states and one side wins by a couple of perentage points, the outcome is ironclad will of the people and even if these dishonest arguments turn out to be to many people's surprise wrong, it will not change what is the will of the people. Vice versa, any notion of asking people what they like about the actual outcome is considered pretty much hostile against democracy. Or something like that. I really can't claim to understand the argument properly.
kansface 8y ago
Just like science - run the experiment until you get the right results to publish!

kodablah 8y ago

> It just seems reasonable to have another vote. It seems absolutely unreasonable to me. It's hard to measure how certain tactics influenced the vote on either side. The voting process needs to be done with confidence and we should not so easily assume our peers are misinformed and/or so easily swayed. The efforts put forth by legitimate actors to campaign for their cause goes for not, as does confidence in the democratic process, when the outcome is just thrown away.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
The voting process does need to be done with confidence. In the first vote Leave were referred to the police for illegality, and they still haven't provided a full account of their funding - at least some of which seems very likely to have come from foreign sources. This is explicitly and very clearly not legal, because foreign money has no business trying to influence the vote in a sovereign British matter. So a People's Vote would be the first honest vote.
- moduspol 8y ago
  Cases like these could be made after any election ever, and we're going down a dark road by presuming this time is any different.

MatekCopatek 8y ago

Because this would imply a public referendum is impotent - if you don't like the outcome, you can just keep campaigning and try again later.

zimpenfish 8y ago
It was a non-binding referendum - they could have “carefully examined” the result for a week and then tossed it in the trash, politely declining the “advice” of the populace.
- refurb 8y ago
  Oh yes, that would have gone over incredibly well.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    As if what they did instead has gone over any better.
    - refurb 8y ago
      Bungling the split up a union is far better than ignoring the will of your constituents.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        Assuming that a narrow result on a yes/no vote on a general concept means that the “will of your constituents” falls on one side of a complex policy issue irrespective of details of the concrete policies embedded in the available concrete realization of the broad concept that were not known at the time of the vote is quite ludicrous, even without the side that ultimately won using specific concrete descriptions as a sales pitch that conflict with that reality. That's especially true when equally non-binding but current polling of your constituents on the same question shows that the opposite side quite likely leads now that the concrete options are known. It's a well-established British Constitutional principal that a Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament. Why would one view the public will ant differently, even if it were fully informed?
        refurb 8y ago

noir_lord 8y ago

It can but no politician wants the right wing press to go all "WILL OF THE PEOPLE" on them. It was a non-binding referendum, a glorified opinion poll and that was before we found out about the lying, the financial irregularities and external interference. Shrugs, I'm resigned to whatever happens happening at this point.

severino 8y ago

And then, if this second voting yields a different result, shouldn't they hold a third referendum afterwards? And maybe a few more, as you can always say the last one was not the genuine one.

aurailious 8y ago
Replace "should" with "could" and you'd be right. Each vote would be genuine if its conudcted according to law.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- sparkie 8y ago
  If there's always another vote, no vote needs to be implemented. What's the point of voting then? Kids learn at an early age that when you lose, you lose. They usually grow out of "best of 3" or "best of 5" before age 10. Even a 5 year old knows that "best of 2" doesn't work.
  - vkou 8y ago
    A vote is not a suicide pact that binds you to a decision from now, until the heat death of the universe.
  - aurailious 8y ago
    > If there's always another vote, no vote needs to be implemented. What's the point of voting then? Most democracies have regular periods where you vote. Are you suggesting that since there will be a new US Presidential election in 2020 that Trump is now no longer legitimate? How would that circumstance be any different that a referdendum? Voting isn't wrong. What is the implication of you trying to tie the institution of democracy to childhood antics? Are you suggesting that a vote is no different that chance? That the opinion's of people that change are no longer legitimate?
  - stordoff 8y ago

beefield 8y ago

I think the issue is that once you have had a referendum with outright dishonest arguments and likely manipulated by foreign states and one side wins by a couple of perentage points, the outcome is ironclad will of the people and even if these dishonest arguments turn out to be to many people's surprise wrong, it will not change what is the will of the people. Vice versa, any notion of asking people what they like about the actual outcome is considered pretty much hostile against democracy. Or something like that. I really can't claim to understand the argument properly.

kansface 8y ago

Just like science - run the experiment until you get the right results to publish!