4 ms·

Well, people vote for something and you ignore their democratic vote. Pretty bad.

chc 8y ago
The usual suggestion is not to ignore the vote, but to put it back up for a vote. Ask people if, now that they've seen the difficulty of Brexit, they still want to do this. If the people actually want the Brexit that exists in real life, they'll reaffirm. It's still democratic by any reasonable definition of the word.
- altern8 8y ago
  Having people vote again and again until you get the result you want is like ignoring the vote.
  - chc 8y ago
    First of all, two votes is not "again and again" in any sense of the phrase. I take your point, but nobody is suggesting referendums without end. Second of all, bringing something up for a vote more that once is not like ignoring the vote. Rejected proposals are very often brought back up, maybe with some retooling, maybe just in hopes that the passage of time has made them more palatable. For example, Quebec voted on its equivalent of Brexit twice, and though it was a bit of a joke, it wasn't generally viewed as shady. It is possible to use additional referendums as a stalling tactic, and if you kept doing it forever, you would effectively be ignoring the vote. But again, nobody is suggesting that. Putting it up for another vote now that the public has more information would literally just be democracy.
    - altern8 8y ago
      > I take your point, but nobody is suggesting referendums without end. Of course not, just until people vote remain!
foobarbazetc 8y ago
Nobody voted for what is about to happen. Or May’s deal. That’s the whole issue (apart from putting Brexit up to a 50% referendum in the first place).
grey-area 8y ago
Democracy is a process not a single vote. People voted based on russian-funded lies funnelled through corrupt millionaires like Arron Banks, illegally funded and illegally targetting voters with murky data from the likes of cambridge analytica, using extensive and highly targetted ad campaigns on FB (still going on btw - over £500k spent this week). Among other lies politicians told them that we'd stay in the custons union and havd more money for the nhs, but mostly they played on a fear of immigrants. Brexit won by a tiny margin on the largest constitutional change since the act of union, but somehow 'the will of the people' at that moment in time is inviolate and can never be questioned. That's facism, not democracy.
- altern8 8y ago
  I assume you also believe we never went to the Moon..?
- vixen99 8y ago
  And if the remainers had won with a 'tiny margin' the same argument could be made. It's clear you have an agenda though you don't apply the same arguments on the other side for those whose pockets are well-lined directly by the EU. I do understand that turkeys don't vote for Christmas. As for your comparison with fascism, you need to extend your reading on the subject.
  - grey-area 8y ago
    My point was it is very foolish and provides no democratic mandate to vote on such vast changes with a simple majority. Whatever the outcome, it was an extremely bad idea in what is supposed to be a representative democracy. So I think you're agreeing with me there. You think the EU funded illegal propaganda like that funded via the russian embassy? Got any proof of that? Arron banks is being investigated currently: https://www.politico.eu/article/arron-banks-investigated-over-brexit-campaign-funding/ https://www.politico.eu/article/arron-banks-investigated-ove... I believe rhetoric like 'the will of the people' is facist.
    - robdachshund 8y ago
matthewmacleod 8y ago
You've been downvoted, but this is the core issue preventing a simple solution. It is legitimately damaging to democracy to have the results of a referendum ignored. That referendum shouldn't have been executed in the manner it was, but we can't ignore the outcome. The problem is, the practical reality of that vote (as it has worked out) is pretty sketchy, and pleases very few people. So now we have the three immediate options of "no deal" (obviously catastrophic), "negotiated deal" (no political support) and "cancel" (directly opposed to the referendum outcome). Honestly the only way I see out of it with even a shred of democracy left is to hold a second referendum to ratify the deal.
- pmyteh 8y ago
  I agree. The problem with a second referendum, though, is that the vote is to stay it won't be "the country" changing its mind. The country doesn't have one. If 5 percentage points of the previous 52% change their minds, the 47% that voted (Brexit, Brexit) will feel betrayed, as they will (actually) have been sold out. They were told that their first decision would count, then people-who-were-not-them demanded another vote, then people-who-were-not-them took their victory away. Of course, those of us who voted (Remain, Remain) will be happy, but this isn't exactly analogous to a general election, where this kind of change-of-result is expected. The referendum was supposed to be a one-off, and 'those people' will have stolen Brexit. I have a bit of sympathy for this position, but I have a lot more concern for the long-term consequences of reducing trust in the political process even further.

chc 8y ago

The usual suggestion is not to ignore the vote, but to put it back up for a vote. Ask people if, now that they've seen the difficulty of Brexit, they still want to do this. If the people actually want the Brexit that exists in real life, they'll reaffirm. It's still democratic by any reasonable definition of the word.

altern8 8y ago
Having people vote again and again until you get the result you want is like ignoring the vote.
- chc 8y ago
  First of all, two votes is not "again and again" in any sense of the phrase. I take your point, but nobody is suggesting referendums without end. Second of all, bringing something up for a vote more that once is not like ignoring the vote. Rejected proposals are very often brought back up, maybe with some retooling, maybe just in hopes that the passage of time has made them more palatable. For example, Quebec voted on its equivalent of Brexit twice, and though it was a bit of a joke, it wasn't generally viewed as shady. It is possible to use additional referendums as a stalling tactic, and if you kept doing it forever, you would effectively be ignoring the vote. But again, nobody is suggesting that. Putting it up for another vote now that the public has more information would literally just be democracy.
  - altern8 8y ago
    > I take your point, but nobody is suggesting referendums without end. Of course not, just until people vote remain!

foobarbazetc 8y ago

Nobody voted for what is about to happen. Or May’s deal. That’s the whole issue (apart from putting Brexit up to a 50% referendum in the first place).

grey-area 8y ago

Democracy is a process not a single vote. People voted based on russian-funded lies funnelled through corrupt millionaires like Arron Banks, illegally funded and illegally targetting voters with murky data from the likes of cambridge analytica, using extensive and highly targetted ad campaigns on FB (still going on btw - over £500k spent this week). Among other lies politicians told them that we'd stay in the custons union and havd more money for the nhs, but mostly they played on a fear of immigrants. Brexit won by a tiny margin on the largest constitutional change since the act of union, but somehow 'the will of the people' at that moment in time is inviolate and can never be questioned. That's facism, not democracy.

altern8 8y ago
I assume you also believe we never went to the Moon..?
vixen99 8y ago
And if the remainers had won with a 'tiny margin' the same argument could be made. It's clear you have an agenda though you don't apply the same arguments on the other side for those whose pockets are well-lined directly by the EU. I do understand that turkeys don't vote for Christmas. As for your comparison with fascism, you need to extend your reading on the subject.
- grey-area 8y ago
  My point was it is very foolish and provides no democratic mandate to vote on such vast changes with a simple majority. Whatever the outcome, it was an extremely bad idea in what is supposed to be a representative democracy. So I think you're agreeing with me there. You think the EU funded illegal propaganda like that funded via the russian embassy? Got any proof of that? Arron banks is being investigated currently: https://www.politico.eu/article/arron-banks-investigated-over-brexit-campaign-funding/ https://www.politico.eu/article/arron-banks-investigated-ove... I believe rhetoric like 'the will of the people' is facist.
  - robdachshund 8y ago

matthewmacleod 8y ago

You've been downvoted, but this is the core issue preventing a simple solution. It is legitimately damaging to democracy to have the results of a referendum ignored. That referendum shouldn't have been executed in the manner it was, but we can't ignore the outcome. The problem is, the practical reality of that vote (as it has worked out) is pretty sketchy, and pleases very few people. So now we have the three immediate options of "no deal" (obviously catastrophic), "negotiated deal" (no political support) and "cancel" (directly opposed to the referendum outcome). Honestly the only way I see out of it with even a shred of democracy left is to hold a second referendum to ratify the deal.

pmyteh 8y ago
I agree. The problem with a second referendum, though, is that the vote is to stay it won't be "the country" changing its mind. The country doesn't have one. If 5 percentage points of the previous 52% change their minds, the 47% that voted (Brexit, Brexit) will feel betrayed, as they will (actually) have been sold out. They were told that their first decision would count, then people-who-were-not-them demanded another vote, then people-who-were-not-them took their victory away. Of course, those of us who voted (Remain, Remain) will be happy, but this isn't exactly analogous to a general election, where this kind of change-of-result is expected. The referendum was supposed to be a one-off, and 'those people' will have stolen Brexit. I have a bit of sympathy for this position, but I have a lot more concern for the long-term consequences of reducing trust in the political process even further.