4 ms·

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

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
        Having a "do over" referendum and finding opinions have changed is entirely different than what the OP suggested which was ignoring the results of the referendum entirely.
      - 794CD01 8y ago
        Democracy means accepting that the voting public has no idea what makes good policy, but that they should determine policy anyway.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Democracy means accepting that the voting public has no idea what makes good policy, but that they should determine policy anyway. Representative democracy means that they determine policy by choosing representatives. It's disingenuous for those representatives to turn around and blame their own policy choices on an explicitly non-binding referendum that they sent to the public. (Especially so for a leader of the party who choose to do that specifically as a means of minimizing the impact of the issue so referred on a general election so as to preserve their partisan majority.
        zimpenfish 8y ago
        > they should determine policy anyway. Then it should have been a binding referendum.

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
      Having a "do over" referendum and finding opinions have changed is entirely different than what the OP suggested which was ignoring the results of the referendum entirely.
    - 794CD01 8y ago
      Democracy means accepting that the voting public has no idea what makes good policy, but that they should determine policy anyway.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Democracy means accepting that the voting public has no idea what makes good policy, but that they should determine policy anyway. Representative democracy means that they determine policy by choosing representatives. It's disingenuous for those representatives to turn around and blame their own policy choices on an explicitly non-binding referendum that they sent to the public. (Especially so for a leader of the party who choose to do that specifically as a means of minimizing the impact of the issue so referred on a general election so as to preserve their partisan majority.
      - zimpenfish 8y ago
        > they should determine policy anyway. Then it should have been a binding referendum.