3 ms·
Bear in mind that the second of those referendums didn't happen until two decades after the EEC we'd originally signed up to was massively and fundamentally cha
by makomk 8y ago
Bear in mind that the second of those referendums didn't happen until two decades after the EEC we'd originally signed up to was massively and fundamentally changed in nature. Now we're talking about having another referendum two and a half years after the previous one, before the result of the last referendum has even been implemented. That's quite a difference and it very strongly suggests that we're only seeing calls for another referendum now because the last one came to the "wrong" result.
(Also, we didn't actually get any referendum on joining the EEC. The 1975 referendum was on whether we'd stay in and came with very similar warnings about the perils of leaving to the more recent referendum. One has to wonder whether, if that'd ended in a leave vote, we'd have had a second referendum several decades sooner than we did.)
- rbanffy 8y agoI wouldn't say it's because it's the "wrong" result but that only now you could make an informed decision because only now you can see what a Brexit looks like. To be fair, it could be seen since 2016, but now it can no longer be honestly ignored.
- joshuahughes 8y agoI don't think we're seeing "what a Brexit looks like". We're seeing the fumbling of a government who gave the British people a vote in 2016 and whose bluff was called. They didn't want and, more importantly, didn't expect the result they got, and stupidly had done nothing to prepare for it. And for the last two years, they've petulantly gone through the motions of negotiating a deal that they would dearly love to fail. In light of all that, it's entirely unsurprising that the process has been a catastrophic mess. However, it doesn't give anyone the freedom to give up on what most definitely was a democratic decision.
- rbanffy 8y agoI don't think they hoped it'd fail. There was no chance of anything better than the kind of deal Norway has - they pay, obey the rules and have no say - as opposed to what the UK now has - they pay, obey the rules and have a say. A democratic decision on a poorly formulated question at best. Democracy assumes informed decisions by the people and this was anything but. The leave campaign made every misrepresentation they could in order to paint a rosy future we all knew would never be possible.
- rst 8y agoThe second referendum featured a Leave campaign that effectively promised, among other things, continued access to European markets on pretty much as-member terms; indeed, immediately afterwards, David Davis, placed at the head of the negotiations, was promising a deal that secured "all the benefits of membership". That deal was not available, and so the result of the second referendum cannot be implemented. If you want to claim a democratic mandate for the departure options that are available (May's deal, leaving you tied to the EU on disadvantageous terms, or no deal, and immediate, massive disruptions in cross-border commerce), you'll need another vote.
- specialist 8y agoAccepting the result normalizes the illegal campaigning and foreign influence. If the leave decision was truly the will of the people, then holding another referendum shouldn't be a concern, if only to reaffirm the legitimacy.
- int_19h 8y agoThe second referendum was on the broad question of leave/stay, without the fine details. It is widely accepted that a lot of people voted without understanding the details. Now there are specific options on the table. It seems only fair to allow people to vote on no-deal, the best deal they could get, or no Brexit at this point.