3 ms·

> 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 d

> 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.

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.