10 ms·

The issue with the referendum since the beginning was leave was such a nebulous cloud for the entire range of Brexit from barely-there-Brexit to Britian-stands-

by rtkwe 8y ago

The issue with the referendum since the beginning was leave was such a nebulous cloud for the entire range of Brexit from barely-there-Brexit to Britian-stands-alone(-get-those-people-out)-Brexit while remain had a very definite meaning. Because of that everyone could pour all their displeasure at anything wrong into leave and think the deal would take care of it. That's why I'm always annoyed at the 'another referendum would tarnish democracy' line, it wouldn't be another nebulous question it would be a direct vote on an actual deal giving people the chance to make an actual choice on the future of the UK. > Instead, they are trying to camouflage that reality with a bad deal that keeps Britain shackled to the EU for a number of years while losing any say it had over the way EU works. I don't think Brexit as it was formulated was ever possible if the EU was wanting to be extremely generous because one of the main gripes was all the regulations on products coming from the EU parliament. Ultimately if the UK was going to have access to the EU market at all pretty much all of those regulations would still apply because to sell into that market they'd have to comply with the regulations of the EU market!

growlist 8y ago
Edit: I got a bit carried away.
- andybak 8y ago
  > all calls for a second referendum would be treated with utter contempt Yes but it's symmetrical. If result A then calls for second referendum greeted with derision by side B If result B then calls for second referendum greeted with derision by side A So no conclusion can be drawn by the fact that people are partisan. The question of whether a second referendum is a good idea is independent of the result of the first referendum.
  - sievebrain 8y ago
    Let's phrase it like this. There would be nobody in parliament or government talking about a second referendum if remain had won. In fact it'd have been taken as a mandate to immediately pass more powers to Brussels, see the PESCO.
    - tim333 8y ago
      Dunno. BBC from 2016: > The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."
      - sievebrain 8y ago
        Farage isn't an MP and parliament is dominated by remainers loyal to Labour or the Tories. You make my point for me.
    - Shish2k 8y ago
      > There would be nobody in parliament or government talking about a second referendum if remain had won Before the results were fully counted, when it looked as if remain had won, leavers were already beginning work on their campaign for a second referendum.
    - renaudg 8y ago
      Well, of course. Remain is the current, familiar situation. A Remain victory wouldn't have come with a 25% drop in the pound, rampant inflation, the worst growth rate of G8 countries, stockpiling of food and drugs, and an increasing risk to see the world order that brought about the longest period of peace (70 years) in this corner of the world, being toppled. A Remain victory would also have been obtained in spite of, not thanks to, Russian interference, fake news, and overspending by Vote Leave (as found by the Electoral Commission who referred them to the police) So yes, somehow the idea of a second referendum makes more sense in one case than in the other. Dunno why...
      - simonturvey 8y ago
        > A Remain victory wouldn't have come with a 25% drop in the pound, rampant inflation, the worst growth rate of G8 countries Why do people spout such provable nonsense?! Inflation is around the BoE target rate of 2% having just nudged down a touch (consensus forecast for Jan 2019 is 2.1%). Rampant inflation is what you see in Venezuela and Zimbabwe. A moment's thought should disabuse you of this opinion. Back in late 2015, the UK's growth was around 2.9% based primarily on fundamentals that are largely unrelated to Brexit (IT and software). Those fundamentals haven't changed so there's a high likelihood that growth is dragging due to overall negative sentiment as a result of Brexit uncertainty. Clear that fog, and growth should bounce back. The fastest way to clarity that honours the referendum result, though many don't want to hear it, is a no-deal departure with appropriate WTO exceptions based on national security assertions (de-risking essential supplies) during an FTA negotiation period coupled with the (already given) assertions on the EU citizens' right-to-remain in the UK.
  - growlist 8y ago
    The point is that in the alternate scenario there wouldn't be half the establishment or more agitating to subvert the democratic will of the largest vote ever in British history, I guess..
    - tim333 8y ago
      There's something to be said for a bias towards the status quo. If it ain't broke don't fix it and all that. If the vote had been 60-40 leave I'd agree with you but it was close to 50/50 and based on some misinformation.
      - growlist 8y ago
        I'll just make the point once again: more people voted for Brexit than have voted for anything else in the UK, ever.
        mikeash 8y ago
        That’s mostly because more people are in the UK than ever before.
      - gpm 8y ago
        There's an argument that the bias towards the status quo weighs in the other direction. People are biased towards the status quo, if 50% of people are willing to go against the status quo they are more likely to be right than the 50% of people not willing to. I actually find it really remarkable that 50% of voters were unhappy enough with the EU to go against the status quo.
  - towelr34dy 8y ago
    There is a difference: If A, then result would NEVER be realistically contested If B, then result COULD be realistically contested No one would argue that if the vote were stay, we'd be seeing it again. It wouldn't happen. Not even maybe. But since the underdog won, since leave won, it is now contestable. I'm on this fence on this one, and I don't live there, so I don't have a side. But I do see each side's points.
    - nothrabannosir 8y ago
      > But since the underdog won, since leave won, it is now contestable. As much as our friends in parliament sometimes make it out to be, it is not purely a match. There is no "underdog" in Brexit; there is one team, the UK, with two options: remain or leave. Choosing a bad option affects everyone equally (except a few career politicians). With all the shouting and finger pointing it's easy to lose track of this fact: it is not a competition. We're in this together. We're a family, and we might be cutting off the nose to spite the face. But it has morphed into an us-vs-them issue (brexiteers vs remainers, not even immigrants), and through the lens of competition we only see the finish line.
      - towelr34dy 8y ago
        It sounds like your post is arguing without actually contradicting anything I said. I mean, your post basically is: Why can't we all just get along. While it's a noble feeling, the reality is society is fractious, and for complex and nuanced decisions such as brexit there are people who will net-net benefit and people who will net net see detriment. And 'leave option' was the underdog, you might not like to admit it but, the financial and betting markets saw it as such objectively. I'm not sure why you feel the need to try and deny this.
- rtkwe 8y ago
  I don't see the contradiction here. Remain was what it says on the tin stay in the EU and any desired changes happen within the system of the EU. My whole point is the leave has gone from this huge nebula of different brexits to one, the one currently negotiated by PM May. Ideally if it were possible the vote should have never been held until there was an actual deal or at least a concrete foundation. Without the actual details of a deal the referendum isn't much better than an opinion poll on the EU because there's no facts about what leave actually means before it's negotiated. Or a vote to initiate the process and another about the actual facts of the deal.
  - djmobley 8y ago
    > Remain was what it says on the tin stay in the EU and any desired changes happen within the system of the EU. That's simply not true. Both remain and leave campaigns were backed up by dubious or misleading claims about what the future would look like if the UK voted to leave the EU. Those backing remain claimed Brexit would cause financial instability and require an emergency budget, that unemployment would rise, that NHS finances would be undermined, that families would be £4,300 worse off, that Scotland would immediately leave the UK, etc. David Cameron said he would stay on as Prime Minister in the event of a leave vote. None of these things happened.
    - macintux 8y ago
      > None of these things happened. Well, Brexit hasn’t occurred yet, so only Cameron’s departure has put the lie to any of Remain’s arguments.
      - djmobley 8y ago
        To be clear, the scare-mongering implied all these things would happen near enough immediately following a leave vote.
        rtkwe 8y ago
        To be double clear a lot of those were also long term consequences too, eg: the 4300 number was by 2030.
- DDub 8y ago
  Is it not an implementation of double jeopardy? Since the referendum new facts have come to light, that of what an exit deal would look like. New facts should allow for a new vote. If remain had won, there would be no new facts so why would another vote be justified?
  - growlist 8y ago
    Do you honestly think it is healthy for democracy if the UK is forced into remaining?
    - clappski 8y ago
      Forced into remaining by a second democratic referendum, held due to the uncovering of lies and nebulous accounting of the leave campaign that the full extent of hasn’t been fully uncovered?
      - growlist 8y ago
        There was FUD on both sides!
        mpweiher 8y ago
        1. The proven illegal overspend by Leave was enough, according to people who model these things, to sway around 800K voters. The margin was less than that. 2. This is not about FUD. This was egregious lies: a) Daniel Hannan: “Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.” b) David Davies: "There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside." c) Michael Gove: "The day after we vote to leave we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want." d) Boris Johnson: "There will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market." Never mind the £ 350m for the NHS per week on the bus. I could go on and on and on...
        Robin_Message 8y ago
        Do you have a source for point 1? That seems incredibly important.
- starshadowx2 8y ago
  That hypothetical isn't equivalent though. If remain had one the referendum then everything would have just continued as normal. If there had been calls for a second referendum in that case then it would definitely just be a case of calling a vote until you win. This potential second referendum would be on voting for this actual "deal" or chance of hard Brexit. It would be voting on what May has so far been able to accomplish (or not accomplish). The first referendum was done with no idea on what was going to happen and now the British people can actually see through the lies the Brexiteers made and decide if this is what they actually want. It's much more democratic now that everyone is more aware. If leave wins again then go right ahead with the hard Brexit, it's what people want. If remain wins then the people have decided against shooting themselves in the foot.
- Krasnol 8y ago
  If the vote had gone the other way, the results of that would have been clear from the beginning. It would have been what the UK had. It would have been a reasonable result. The Brexit result people voted for was an illusion (others call it lies). So why not let the people vote on the actual results now? The only reason I see is the fear of the Brexiters that they would fail in a spectacular way after all those failures they delivered since the vote went through.
- rconti 8y ago
  If the result had gone the other way, the UK would have voted to remain in the EU. If a 2nd referendum came along a couple years later, nothing would have materially changed. It's difficult to argue that nothing has materially changed in the process of trying to actually Brexit.
amelius 8y ago
> That's why I'm always annoyed at the 'another referendum would tarnish democracy' line I'm annoyed for another reason: first, in 1975, [1], there was a referendum that asked the British people if they would want to join the EEC. Then, in 2016, there was a referendum that asked them if they would want to leave the EU. So if there can be a second, then why can't there be a third? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_European_Union%E2%80%93United_Kingdom_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_European_Union%E2%8...
- sievebrain 8y ago
  Maybe there can ... in another 40 years? You seem to be ignoring the rather large difference in time being proposed here.
  - mpweiher 8y ago
    You are ignoring: a) the narrow outcome b) the non-binding nature of the vote c) the fact that leave overspent + cheated d) the fact that what was presented as "leave" was an impossible lie (the cake-and-eat-it option) e) even if you disregard the cake-and-eat-it faction, both "cake" and "eat it" were under the "leave" umbrella. Doesn't hurt to first settle whether you would prefer "cake" or "eat it" and then hold the referendum. Oh and of course: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way." Who said it? Yes, Nigel Farage.
    - benmmurphy 8y ago
      In reply to point c) The government spend £9.3 million pounds sending a pro-EU leaflet to every household in the country. That is more than the £7 million campaign spending cap. This is the leaflet in question: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... The leaflet doesn't even pretend to be neutral. I think it is ridiculous to claim that leave overspent+cheated compared to remain. I think both parties played loose and fast with the rules. It just so happens remain is basically in control of the institutions and the bulk of media in the UK so you only really see one side of the story.
rndmize 8y ago
I'm actually not sure the nebulousness of the original Leave plan is the problem - if it was, I'd expect significant changes in where people stand on the issue, or fear of the No Deal option, which doesn't seem to be the case. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/01/14/mps-prepare-brexit-vote-where-do-britons-stand https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/0... > Overall, 41% of people now think it was right for Britain to vote Leave, while 47% believe it was the wrong decision – but this does not necessarily translate into support for stopping the process. > Asked what we should do next, 28% of people want to stop Brexit entirely, while 8% would hold a second referendum to decide matters. --- > Some suggest Government had hoped the risk of No Deal would force support for the deal on the table. But while No Deal is an unpopular option, it doesn't necessarily seem as intimidating as expected. > Part of this appears to be a lack of understanding - only 56% of people realize that "No Deal" means exactly that, leaving the European Union without any deal at all. Strangely, 26% think it that it actually includes a deal, to ensure a smooth transition or a formal transition period. > While 49% say they would be worried by a No Deal Brexit, these are overwhelmingly Remain voters - 38% of the public as a whole, and 70% of Leave voters the idea doesn’t worry them. > Three quarters (76%) of Leave voters think warnings of No Deal disruption are exaggerated or entirely invented. Put simply, Leave voters did not believe warnings about the damage Brexit could cause in 2016, and don't believe them now.
pjc50 8y ago
> That's why I'm always annoyed at the 'another referendum would tarnish democracy' line I'm annoyed about the whole "referendum is true democracy" because no two referendums in the UK have been held under the same rules. EU nationals resident in the UK are entitled to vote in Parliamentary elections. They voted in the Scottish independence referendum. They were not allowed to vote in this referendum, despite the fact that it would erode their rights and possibly force them out of the country. Besides, democracy has been "tarnished" by widespread cheating in the referendum which had not been adequately prosecuted. Not to mention that the U.K. is not a "popular sovereignty" country, we're a constitutional monarchy with an unelected upper house! The uncodified constition gets changed increasingly often in a haphazard way. We're practically making it up as we go along (see Bercow controversy).
- FartyMcFarter 8y ago
  > EU nationals resident in the UK are entitled to vote in Parliamentary elections. No they aren't: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/who-is-eligible-to-vote-at-a-uk-general-election https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-regist... I agree with your general point though.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Oops, you're right, it's the other way round; UK nationals in the EU can vote in Parliamentary elections but not the referendum. The great thing about democracy is there are so many different electorates to choose from.
    - makomk 8y ago
      As far as I understand it, the eligibility rules for the EU referendum were exactly the same as for Parliamentary elections: UK nationals in the EU were only eligible to vote if they'd been abroad for less than 15 years. The Scottish independence referendum was the oddball one, largely at the request of the Scottish government from what I can tell. It required actual residence in Scotland but little else.
accnumnplus1 8y ago
How is "leave the EU" nebulous? There's nothing nebulous about it. The only thing that's nebulous, as Juncker said, is Theresa May with her faux-brexit deal.
- meepmorp 8y ago
  It’s nebulous because “leave the EU,” means everything from remaining in the SM and CU, to having no formal relationship with the EU, and a number of positions in between. People voted for the leave option without well defined idea of what that choice entailed. Remain, by contrast, was basically about keeping things as-is.
  - rezeroed 8y ago
    "no formal relationship with the EU" - anything else wouldn't really be leaving, would it? It would be partial leaving. The vote wasn't for partial leaving.
    - Tomte 8y ago
      So Japan is "in" the EU, because of the recent trade treaty? This is a formal relationship, after all.
    - rtkwe 8y ago
      Then the leave vote wasn't actually leave because even leave didn't want to completely cut the UK off from the single market! That's been the paradox at the heart of brexit since the beginning, they complained about the amount of EU regulation but want to still sell and buy from the single market which requires that they conform to a large majority of the regulations they were complaining about.
anonu 8y ago
The original referendum was just wrong to begin with. There are some decisions you cannot give to the people. You end up with Boaty McBoatface situations.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boaty_McBoatface https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boaty_McBoatface

by rtkwe 8y ago

growlist 8y ago

Edit: I got a bit carried away.

andybak 8y ago
> all calls for a second referendum would be treated with utter contempt Yes but it's symmetrical. If result A then calls for second referendum greeted with derision by side B If result B then calls for second referendum greeted with derision by side A So no conclusion can be drawn by the fact that people are partisan. The question of whether a second referendum is a good idea is independent of the result of the first referendum.
- sievebrain 8y ago
  Let's phrase it like this. There would be nobody in parliament or government talking about a second referendum if remain had won. In fact it'd have been taken as a mandate to immediately pass more powers to Brussels, see the PESCO.
  - tim333 8y ago
    Dunno. BBC from 2016: > The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."
    - sievebrain 8y ago
      Farage isn't an MP and parliament is dominated by remainers loyal to Labour or the Tories. You make my point for me.
  - Shish2k 8y ago
    > There would be nobody in parliament or government talking about a second referendum if remain had won Before the results were fully counted, when it looked as if remain had won, leavers were already beginning work on their campaign for a second referendum.
  - renaudg 8y ago
    Well, of course. Remain is the current, familiar situation. A Remain victory wouldn't have come with a 25% drop in the pound, rampant inflation, the worst growth rate of G8 countries, stockpiling of food and drugs, and an increasing risk to see the world order that brought about the longest period of peace (70 years) in this corner of the world, being toppled. A Remain victory would also have been obtained in spite of, not thanks to, Russian interference, fake news, and overspending by Vote Leave (as found by the Electoral Commission who referred them to the police) So yes, somehow the idea of a second referendum makes more sense in one case than in the other. Dunno why...
    - simonturvey 8y ago
      > A Remain victory wouldn't have come with a 25% drop in the pound, rampant inflation, the worst growth rate of G8 countries Why do people spout such provable nonsense?! Inflation is around the BoE target rate of 2% having just nudged down a touch (consensus forecast for Jan 2019 is 2.1%). Rampant inflation is what you see in Venezuela and Zimbabwe. A moment's thought should disabuse you of this opinion. Back in late 2015, the UK's growth was around 2.9% based primarily on fundamentals that are largely unrelated to Brexit (IT and software). Those fundamentals haven't changed so there's a high likelihood that growth is dragging due to overall negative sentiment as a result of Brexit uncertainty. Clear that fog, and growth should bounce back. The fastest way to clarity that honours the referendum result, though many don't want to hear it, is a no-deal departure with appropriate WTO exceptions based on national security assertions (de-risking essential supplies) during an FTA negotiation period coupled with the (already given) assertions on the EU citizens' right-to-remain in the UK.
- growlist 8y ago
  The point is that in the alternate scenario there wouldn't be half the establishment or more agitating to subvert the democratic will of the largest vote ever in British history, I guess..
  - tim333 8y ago
    There's something to be said for a bias towards the status quo. If it ain't broke don't fix it and all that. If the vote had been 60-40 leave I'd agree with you but it was close to 50/50 and based on some misinformation.
    - growlist 8y ago
      I'll just make the point once again: more people voted for Brexit than have voted for anything else in the UK, ever.
      - mikeash 8y ago
        That’s mostly because more people are in the UK than ever before.
    - gpm 8y ago
      There's an argument that the bias towards the status quo weighs in the other direction. People are biased towards the status quo, if 50% of people are willing to go against the status quo they are more likely to be right than the 50% of people not willing to. I actually find it really remarkable that 50% of voters were unhappy enough with the EU to go against the status quo.
- towelr34dy 8y ago
  There is a difference: If A, then result would NEVER be realistically contested If B, then result COULD be realistically contested No one would argue that if the vote were stay, we'd be seeing it again. It wouldn't happen. Not even maybe. But since the underdog won, since leave won, it is now contestable. I'm on this fence on this one, and I don't live there, so I don't have a side. But I do see each side's points.
  - nothrabannosir 8y ago
    > But since the underdog won, since leave won, it is now contestable. As much as our friends in parliament sometimes make it out to be, it is not purely a match. There is no "underdog" in Brexit; there is one team, the UK, with two options: remain or leave. Choosing a bad option affects everyone equally (except a few career politicians). With all the shouting and finger pointing it's easy to lose track of this fact: it is not a competition. We're in this together. We're a family, and we might be cutting off the nose to spite the face. But it has morphed into an us-vs-them issue (brexiteers vs remainers, not even immigrants), and through the lens of competition we only see the finish line.
    - towelr34dy 8y ago
      It sounds like your post is arguing without actually contradicting anything I said. I mean, your post basically is: Why can't we all just get along. While it's a noble feeling, the reality is society is fractious, and for complex and nuanced decisions such as brexit there are people who will net-net benefit and people who will net net see detriment. And 'leave option' was the underdog, you might not like to admit it but, the financial and betting markets saw it as such objectively. I'm not sure why you feel the need to try and deny this.
rtkwe 8y ago
I don't see the contradiction here. Remain was what it says on the tin stay in the EU and any desired changes happen within the system of the EU. My whole point is the leave has gone from this huge nebula of different brexits to one, the one currently negotiated by PM May. Ideally if it were possible the vote should have never been held until there was an actual deal or at least a concrete foundation. Without the actual details of a deal the referendum isn't much better than an opinion poll on the EU because there's no facts about what leave actually means before it's negotiated. Or a vote to initiate the process and another about the actual facts of the deal.
- djmobley 8y ago
  > Remain was what it says on the tin stay in the EU and any desired changes happen within the system of the EU. That's simply not true. Both remain and leave campaigns were backed up by dubious or misleading claims about what the future would look like if the UK voted to leave the EU. Those backing remain claimed Brexit would cause financial instability and require an emergency budget, that unemployment would rise, that NHS finances would be undermined, that families would be £4,300 worse off, that Scotland would immediately leave the UK, etc. David Cameron said he would stay on as Prime Minister in the event of a leave vote. None of these things happened.
  - macintux 8y ago
    > None of these things happened. Well, Brexit hasn’t occurred yet, so only Cameron’s departure has put the lie to any of Remain’s arguments.
    - djmobley 8y ago
      To be clear, the scare-mongering implied all these things would happen near enough immediately following a leave vote.
      - rtkwe 8y ago
        To be double clear a lot of those were also long term consequences too, eg: the 4300 number was by 2030.
DDub 8y ago
Is it not an implementation of double jeopardy? Since the referendum new facts have come to light, that of what an exit deal would look like. New facts should allow for a new vote. If remain had won, there would be no new facts so why would another vote be justified?
- growlist 8y ago
  Do you honestly think it is healthy for democracy if the UK is forced into remaining?
  - clappski 8y ago
    Forced into remaining by a second democratic referendum, held due to the uncovering of lies and nebulous accounting of the leave campaign that the full extent of hasn’t been fully uncovered?
    - growlist 8y ago
      There was FUD on both sides!
      - mpweiher 8y ago
        1. The proven illegal overspend by Leave was enough, according to people who model these things, to sway around 800K voters. The margin was less than that. 2. This is not about FUD. This was egregious lies: a) Daniel Hannan: “Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.” b) David Davies: "There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside." c) Michael Gove: "The day after we vote to leave we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want." d) Boris Johnson: "There will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market." Never mind the £ 350m for the NHS per week on the bus. I could go on and on and on...
        Robin_Message 8y ago
        Do you have a source for point 1? That seems incredibly important.
starshadowx2 8y ago
That hypothetical isn't equivalent though. If remain had one the referendum then everything would have just continued as normal. If there had been calls for a second referendum in that case then it would definitely just be a case of calling a vote until you win. This potential second referendum would be on voting for this actual "deal" or chance of hard Brexit. It would be voting on what May has so far been able to accomplish (or not accomplish). The first referendum was done with no idea on what was going to happen and now the British people can actually see through the lies the Brexiteers made and decide if this is what they actually want. It's much more democratic now that everyone is more aware. If leave wins again then go right ahead with the hard Brexit, it's what people want. If remain wins then the people have decided against shooting themselves in the foot.
Krasnol 8y ago
If the vote had gone the other way, the results of that would have been clear from the beginning. It would have been what the UK had. It would have been a reasonable result. The Brexit result people voted for was an illusion (others call it lies). So why not let the people vote on the actual results now? The only reason I see is the fear of the Brexiters that they would fail in a spectacular way after all those failures they delivered since the vote went through.
rconti 8y ago
If the result had gone the other way, the UK would have voted to remain in the EU. If a 2nd referendum came along a couple years later, nothing would have materially changed. It's difficult to argue that nothing has materially changed in the process of trying to actually Brexit.

amelius 8y ago

> That's why I'm always annoyed at the 'another referendum would tarnish democracy' line I'm annoyed for another reason: first, in 1975, [1], there was a referendum that asked the British people if they would want to join the EEC. Then, in 2016, there was a referendum that asked them if they would want to leave the EU. So if there can be a second, then why can't there be a third? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_European_Union%E2%80%93United_Kingdom_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_European_Union%E2%8...

sievebrain 8y ago
Maybe there can ... in another 40 years? You seem to be ignoring the rather large difference in time being proposed here.
- mpweiher 8y ago
  You are ignoring: a) the narrow outcome b) the non-binding nature of the vote c) the fact that leave overspent + cheated d) the fact that what was presented as "leave" was an impossible lie (the cake-and-eat-it option) e) even if you disregard the cake-and-eat-it faction, both "cake" and "eat it" were under the "leave" umbrella. Doesn't hurt to first settle whether you would prefer "cake" or "eat it" and then hold the referendum. Oh and of course: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way." Who said it? Yes, Nigel Farage.
  - benmmurphy 8y ago
    In reply to point c) The government spend £9.3 million pounds sending a pro-EU leaflet to every household in the country. That is more than the £7 million campaign spending cap. This is the leaflet in question: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... The leaflet doesn't even pretend to be neutral. I think it is ridiculous to claim that leave overspent+cheated compared to remain. I think both parties played loose and fast with the rules. It just so happens remain is basically in control of the institutions and the bulk of media in the UK so you only really see one side of the story.

rndmize 8y ago

I'm actually not sure the nebulousness of the original Leave plan is the problem - if it was, I'd expect significant changes in where people stand on the issue, or fear of the No Deal option, which doesn't seem to be the case. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/01/14/mps-prepare-brexit-vote-where-do-britons-stand https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/0... > Overall, 41% of people now think it was right for Britain to vote Leave, while 47% believe it was the wrong decision – but this does not necessarily translate into support for stopping the process. > Asked what we should do next, 28% of people want to stop Brexit entirely, while 8% would hold a second referendum to decide matters. --- > Some suggest Government had hoped the risk of No Deal would force support for the deal on the table. But while No Deal is an unpopular option, it doesn't necessarily seem as intimidating as expected. > Part of this appears to be a lack of understanding - only 56% of people realize that "No Deal" means exactly that, leaving the European Union without any deal at all. Strangely, 26% think it that it actually includes a deal, to ensure a smooth transition or a formal transition period. > While 49% say they would be worried by a No Deal Brexit, these are overwhelmingly Remain voters - 38% of the public as a whole, and 70% of Leave voters the idea doesn’t worry them. > Three quarters (76%) of Leave voters think warnings of No Deal disruption are exaggerated or entirely invented. Put simply, Leave voters did not believe warnings about the damage Brexit could cause in 2016, and don't believe them now.

pjc50 8y ago

> That's why I'm always annoyed at the 'another referendum would tarnish democracy' line I'm annoyed about the whole "referendum is true democracy" because no two referendums in the UK have been held under the same rules. EU nationals resident in the UK are entitled to vote in Parliamentary elections. They voted in the Scottish independence referendum. They were not allowed to vote in this referendum, despite the fact that it would erode their rights and possibly force them out of the country. Besides, democracy has been "tarnished" by widespread cheating in the referendum which had not been adequately prosecuted. Not to mention that the U.K. is not a "popular sovereignty" country, we're a constitutional monarchy with an unelected upper house! The uncodified constition gets changed increasingly often in a haphazard way. We're practically making it up as we go along (see Bercow controversy).

FartyMcFarter 8y ago
> EU nationals resident in the UK are entitled to vote in Parliamentary elections. No they aren't: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/who-is-eligible-to-vote-at-a-uk-general-election https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-regist... I agree with your general point though.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Oops, you're right, it's the other way round; UK nationals in the EU can vote in Parliamentary elections but not the referendum. The great thing about democracy is there are so many different electorates to choose from.
  - makomk 8y ago
    As far as I understand it, the eligibility rules for the EU referendum were exactly the same as for Parliamentary elections: UK nationals in the EU were only eligible to vote if they'd been abroad for less than 15 years. The Scottish independence referendum was the oddball one, largely at the request of the Scottish government from what I can tell. It required actual residence in Scotland but little else.

accnumnplus1 8y ago

How is "leave the EU" nebulous? There's nothing nebulous about it. The only thing that's nebulous, as Juncker said, is Theresa May with her faux-brexit deal.

meepmorp 8y ago
It’s nebulous because “leave the EU,” means everything from remaining in the SM and CU, to having no formal relationship with the EU, and a number of positions in between. People voted for the leave option without well defined idea of what that choice entailed. Remain, by contrast, was basically about keeping things as-is.
- rezeroed 8y ago
  "no formal relationship with the EU" - anything else wouldn't really be leaving, would it? It would be partial leaving. The vote wasn't for partial leaving.
  - Tomte 8y ago
    So Japan is "in" the EU, because of the recent trade treaty? This is a formal relationship, after all.
  - rtkwe 8y ago
    Then the leave vote wasn't actually leave because even leave didn't want to completely cut the UK off from the single market! That's been the paradox at the heart of brexit since the beginning, they complained about the amount of EU regulation but want to still sell and buy from the single market which requires that they conform to a large majority of the regulations they were complaining about.

anonu 8y ago

The original referendum was just wrong to begin with. There are some decisions you cannot give to the people. You end up with Boaty McBoatface situations.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boaty_McBoatface https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boaty_McBoatface