8 ms·

It was, nevertheless, the directly expressed will of the people. This is very much the social contract that holds the society together, and makes the government

by m0zg 8y ago

It was, nevertheless, the directly expressed will of the people. This is very much the social contract that holds the society together, and makes the government accountable to the people. Would you rather they just did as they please?

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Yes, definitely. Override uneducated decisions that harm the republic, regardless of "the will of the people" [1] [2] [3] [4]. That is exactly why republics exist versus direct democracy. “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” -- Winston Churchill (edit: supposedly Churchill did not say this; I'm keeping it, as it helps express the idea) Disclaimer: American [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-majority-of-british-people-regret-voting-for-brexit-2018-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-majority-of-british-peo... (POLL: A majority of British people regret voting for Brexit) [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-polls/britain-would-now-vote-to-stay-in-the-eu-new-poll-shows-idUSKCN1LK2U4 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-polls/britain-... (Britain would now vote to stay in the EU by six point margin, new poll shows) [3] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/25/protest-vote-regret-voting-leave-brexit https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/25/protest-vot... (‘I thought I’d put in a protest vote’: the people who regret voting leave) [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United... (Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum)
- Simon_says 8y ago
  Wowzers
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- thesagan 8y ago
  If there's an authority which can deem an election decision as "uneducated" and "harmful" then why have voting at all? Why not just leave major decisions to a committee, if we're going to pick and choose which elections are decided "correctly."
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    > Why not just leave major decisions to a committee We do this in the US, but the committee is formed of three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. People vote for representatives. Representatives enact legislation or executive orders. Those legislation or executive orders can be challenged by our judicial branch and thrown out, regardless of the will of the people and their representatives (see: same sex marriage, abortion, asking people if they're citizens on our census, blocking immigration from countries based on religion, laws that bring about voter suppression). Works well, checks and balances and all that.
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  Apocryphal quote. https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-141/history-detectives-red-herrings-famous-words-churchill-never-said/ https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- m0zg 8y ago
  But "the republic" is not a uniform mass. What's good for some is bad for others. It is far from certain for me at least that the huge influx of cheap labor from Eastern Europe does not harm the lower classes in Britain. I'm pretty certain, on the other hand, that this works extremely well for the upper classes. Besides, given the quality and moral scruples of "decision makers" that governments are usually comprised of, why would you so completely trust them with the fate of the republic in the first place, especially if the populace does not have the benefit of either the first or the second amendment of US constitution? This strikes me as a hypocritical position. I bet you'd say otherwise if e.g. the will of the people was to remain, but the government decided to exit, because in their estimation it'd be better for Britain. You can't pick and choose. If your position is that government knows best, you should be prepared that the government will make decisions you don't like, too.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    > This strikes me as a hypocritical position. I bet you'd say otherwise if e.g. the will of the people was to remain, but the government decided to exit, because in their estimation it'd be better for Britain. Your bet would be wrong. If the data showed exit was superior, I'd hope the government went for it. I am entirely comfortable with the government making decisions I don't like; I'm American and am used it it.
    - m0zg 8y ago
      But "the data" can show no such thing. As I said, it can be better for some and worse for others.
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        There are always winners and losers when decisions are made.
arbitrary_name 8y ago
I'd much rather we tedo the referendum, as a substantial number of people have changed their minds when faced with reality.
mikepurvis 8y ago
The real issue is that the people who voted "for Brexit" were all voting for different things, because it wasn't at all articulated what "Brexit" would look like. Now that that's better understood, there should absolutely be a second referendum, probably with three ranked options: 1. Stay 2. Soft leave (May's deal) 3. Hard leave (No deal) With months and months of nonstop coverage, one could now say that there's broad understanding of what these precise options mean (though probably not their longer-term consequences, especially of option 3). In any case, you don't have to be "ignoring the will of the people" to go back and ask again now that there's better information.
- prepend 8y ago
  ...and keep asking until you get the answer that truly answers the will of the people? Could you make the same argument that people voted yes for multiple reasons? I think it’s difficult to see an outcome where a single referendum would be sufficient to solve all doubt. Especially with three options, if no option has majority would you stick with original referendum? Or not exit?
  - mikepurvis 8y ago
    Straw man. I say nothing that would suggest "keep asking". A single re-ask is justified by the change in available information. And in indeed, if the stay option was selected on this re-ask, but there was enough momentum for one of the leave options, that could merit another referendum in two, five, ten, whatever years— the key is to make certain that any future referendums on this subject are asking about clear, concrete options that are grounded in reality, and not fairy tales. In any case, the point of a ranked ballot is you use runoff to reallocate the last place option votes, so you do get a clear majority in the end.
    - prepend 8y ago
      Let me refine. The reason why I say “keep asking” is that what would happen if the 2nd referendum resulted in leave? It’s hard to tell if that would make me comfortable enough to not want another. And what about the leavers? What justification would be sufficient for them to not call for a 3rd referendum. I didn’t know that the UK used ranked ballots or how common they are. My concern is largely that it’s hard for me to understand well given that all of these issues existed before the referendum and are not novel.
CydeWeys 8y ago
Polling has pretty consistently been anti-Brexit for awhile now, once the clear scope of what Brexit entails has actually been better understood. If another referendum were held today it would fail. Why should a single non-binding vote taken at one point in time two years ago be considered forever irrevocable? Especially considering all of the pro-Brexit fake news and false promises at the time? Most of the promises made by the Brexiteers have turned out to be lies; the UK will not be better off, the NHS will not be better funded, etc. Given how so many underlying rationales for pro-Brexit votes have turned out to be false, of course it makes sense that a different result would be obtained today.
- pnw_hazor 8y ago
  Well the way EU is sticking it the UK would be reason enough to leave. Assuming the UK wants to remain a sovereign nation rather than an EU client.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    The UK already has the best possible deal with the EU of all countries on earth, in or out. They have all of the benefits of membership, and are exempted from some of the downsides: britain controls their own borders and their own currency. The status quo is the best the UK can ever hope to get, from that position, no matter what deal you make it'll be worse than where you are. That's not the "EU sticking it to the UK", that's just reality.
- paulgb 8y ago
  I tend to agree with your main point, but I'd be cautious about being so certain that the referendum would fail this time based on polling. The polls generally overestimated remain last time around (see Polls of Polls, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Unit...)
- m0zg 8y ago
  As recent history shows, polling is unreliable in heavily politically charged issues like this one. Oversample here, undersample there, and you get "95% probability of winning" the night before the loss.
phn 8y ago
Referendums should be reserved to societal/moral issues (gay marriage, etc.). Otherwise, let's have a referendum asking the people if they want to keep paying taxes -- that should work well. Quite extreme, I know. My point is that the government is elected to make decisions taking the economical and political consequences into account. Expecting the general public opinion to be the end-all response to whatever decision is simply wrong.
erikpukinskis 8y ago
The people can change their will at any time.
DanBC 8y ago
The directly expressed will of a minority of the UK was for "brexit", not "brexit no matter what".

by m0zg 8y ago

toomuchtodo 8y ago

Yes, definitely. Override uneducated decisions that harm the republic, regardless of "the will of the people" [1] [2] [3] [4]. That is exactly why republics exist versus direct democracy. “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” -- Winston Churchill (edit: supposedly Churchill did not say this; I'm keeping it, as it helps express the idea) Disclaimer: American [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-majority-of-british-people-regret-voting-for-brexit-2018-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-majority-of-british-peo... (POLL: A majority of British people regret voting for Brexit) [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-polls/britain-would-now-vote-to-stay-in-the-eu-new-poll-shows-idUSKCN1LK2U4 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-polls/britain-... (Britain would now vote to stay in the EU by six point margin, new poll shows) [3] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/25/protest-vote-regret-voting-leave-brexit https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/25/protest-vot... (‘I thought I’d put in a protest vote’: the people who regret voting leave) [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United... (Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum)

Simon_says 8y ago
Wowzers
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
thesagan 8y ago
If there's an authority which can deem an election decision as "uneducated" and "harmful" then why have voting at all? Why not just leave major decisions to a committee, if we're going to pick and choose which elections are decided "correctly."
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  > Why not just leave major decisions to a committee We do this in the US, but the committee is formed of three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. People vote for representatives. Representatives enact legislation or executive orders. Those legislation or executive orders can be challenged by our judicial branch and thrown out, regardless of the will of the people and their representatives (see: same sex marriage, abortion, asking people if they're citizens on our census, blocking immigration from countries based on religion, laws that bring about voter suppression). Works well, checks and balances and all that.
lern_too_spel 8y ago
Apocryphal quote. https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-141/history-detectives-red-herrings-famous-words-churchill-never-said/ https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
m0zg 8y ago
But "the republic" is not a uniform mass. What's good for some is bad for others. It is far from certain for me at least that the huge influx of cheap labor from Eastern Europe does not harm the lower classes in Britain. I'm pretty certain, on the other hand, that this works extremely well for the upper classes. Besides, given the quality and moral scruples of "decision makers" that governments are usually comprised of, why would you so completely trust them with the fate of the republic in the first place, especially if the populace does not have the benefit of either the first or the second amendment of US constitution? This strikes me as a hypocritical position. I bet you'd say otherwise if e.g. the will of the people was to remain, but the government decided to exit, because in their estimation it'd be better for Britain. You can't pick and choose. If your position is that government knows best, you should be prepared that the government will make decisions you don't like, too.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  > This strikes me as a hypocritical position. I bet you'd say otherwise if e.g. the will of the people was to remain, but the government decided to exit, because in their estimation it'd be better for Britain. Your bet would be wrong. If the data showed exit was superior, I'd hope the government went for it. I am entirely comfortable with the government making decisions I don't like; I'm American and am used it it.
  - m0zg 8y ago
    But "the data" can show no such thing. As I said, it can be better for some and worse for others.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      There are always winners and losers when decisions are made.

arbitrary_name 8y ago

I'd much rather we tedo the referendum, as a substantial number of people have changed their minds when faced with reality.

mikepurvis 8y ago

The real issue is that the people who voted "for Brexit" were all voting for different things, because it wasn't at all articulated what "Brexit" would look like. Now that that's better understood, there should absolutely be a second referendum, probably with three ranked options: 1. Stay 2. Soft leave (May's deal) 3. Hard leave (No deal) With months and months of nonstop coverage, one could now say that there's broad understanding of what these precise options mean (though probably not their longer-term consequences, especially of option 3). In any case, you don't have to be "ignoring the will of the people" to go back and ask again now that there's better information.

prepend 8y ago
...and keep asking until you get the answer that truly answers the will of the people? Could you make the same argument that people voted yes for multiple reasons? I think it’s difficult to see an outcome where a single referendum would be sufficient to solve all doubt. Especially with three options, if no option has majority would you stick with original referendum? Or not exit?
- mikepurvis 8y ago
  Straw man. I say nothing that would suggest "keep asking". A single re-ask is justified by the change in available information. And in indeed, if the stay option was selected on this re-ask, but there was enough momentum for one of the leave options, that could merit another referendum in two, five, ten, whatever years— the key is to make certain that any future referendums on this subject are asking about clear, concrete options that are grounded in reality, and not fairy tales. In any case, the point of a ranked ballot is you use runoff to reallocate the last place option votes, so you do get a clear majority in the end.
  - prepend 8y ago
    Let me refine. The reason why I say “keep asking” is that what would happen if the 2nd referendum resulted in leave? It’s hard to tell if that would make me comfortable enough to not want another. And what about the leavers? What justification would be sufficient for them to not call for a 3rd referendum. I didn’t know that the UK used ranked ballots or how common they are. My concern is largely that it’s hard for me to understand well given that all of these issues existed before the referendum and are not novel.

CydeWeys 8y ago

Polling has pretty consistently been anti-Brexit for awhile now, once the clear scope of what Brexit entails has actually been better understood. If another referendum were held today it would fail. Why should a single non-binding vote taken at one point in time two years ago be considered forever irrevocable? Especially considering all of the pro-Brexit fake news and false promises at the time? Most of the promises made by the Brexiteers have turned out to be lies; the UK will not be better off, the NHS will not be better funded, etc. Given how so many underlying rationales for pro-Brexit votes have turned out to be false, of course it makes sense that a different result would be obtained today.

pnw_hazor 8y ago
Well the way EU is sticking it the UK would be reason enough to leave. Assuming the UK wants to remain a sovereign nation rather than an EU client.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  The UK already has the best possible deal with the EU of all countries on earth, in or out. They have all of the benefits of membership, and are exempted from some of the downsides: britain controls their own borders and their own currency. The status quo is the best the UK can ever hope to get, from that position, no matter what deal you make it'll be worse than where you are. That's not the "EU sticking it to the UK", that's just reality.
paulgb 8y ago
I tend to agree with your main point, but I'd be cautious about being so certain that the referendum would fail this time based on polling. The polls generally overestimated remain last time around (see Polls of Polls, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Unit...)
m0zg 8y ago
As recent history shows, polling is unreliable in heavily politically charged issues like this one. Oversample here, undersample there, and you get "95% probability of winning" the night before the loss.

phn 8y ago

Referendums should be reserved to societal/moral issues (gay marriage, etc.). Otherwise, let's have a referendum asking the people if they want to keep paying taxes -- that should work well. Quite extreme, I know. My point is that the government is elected to make decisions taking the economical and political consequences into account. Expecting the general public opinion to be the end-all response to whatever decision is simply wrong.

erikpukinskis 8y ago

The people can change their will at any time.

DanBC 8y ago

The directly expressed will of a minority of the UK was for "brexit", not "brexit no matter what".