5 ms·

Since the vote was so close, why not do another referendum on doing another referendum? You can organize this with one referendum, which is: 1. Would you like

Since the vote was so close, why not do another referendum on doing another referendum? You can organize this with one referendum, which is: 1. Would you like to do another referendum on leaving the EU? A) Yes B) No 2. Great-Brittain should leave the EU A) Yes B) No If people still want Great-Brittain to leave, then they bought themselves some time and otherwise this whole brexit thing has been resolved.

sleavey 7y ago
You joke, but asking the uninformed public to vote on such deep constitutional matters was what got the UK into this mess. Barely anyone in the public was qualified to give their judgement on the merits of continuing inside the EU versus the concept of being out of it. The question was then morphed by the Leave side into "do you think we should stop immigrants coming to the UK?", with the consequences we can all see now.
- burtonator 7y ago
  It's like voting over whether vaccines work or not... Some things should be left to experts. This is the major criticism of direct democracy.
  - dionian 7y ago
    things as important as democratic representation and national sovereignty should require the support of the people, they can be informed by experts, but should not have their decisions made by experts when it comes to peaceful self-determination
    - sleavey 7y ago
      Possibly, but if the public were really to be trusted to make decisions on national sovereignty they should not have been asked to decide between the status quo and some abstract, undefined future outside the EU. One of the biggest problems with Brexit was that it meant so many different things to that 52%.
    - thomascgalvin 7y ago
      There isn't a good answer to this dilemma. On the one hand, you're right, the people are sovereign and should not have their rights trampled by an unelected hegemony. On the other hand, people are stupid, and often too stupid to be trusted to make decisions related to complex matters on which the general person is not an expert. Worse, bad actors have figured out how to exploit freedom of speech to weaponize this stupidity. So we're now in a position where a fundamental human right is also the direct cause of significant human misery.
  - sleavey 7y ago
    Indeed. A recent poll was quoted on yesterday's "Any Questions?" show on BBC Radio 4 by a Brexiteer, which apparently asked the public "should MPs represent their own views or those of their constituents?". Some small number of voters - I forget, but it was around 7% - thought they should represent their own views and the rest thought those of their constituents. This was, in the Brexiteer's view, evidence that MPs delaying Brexit in any form was anti-democratic given that 52% voted for "it" (where "it" was sadly not defined). Thing is, we elect MPs exactly so they can express their views in parliament. They're supposed to be experts, or at least they are given resources to consult experts on matters that affect their constituents. They are resolutely not for representing their constituents' views - that's why they publish a manifesto of what they want to do and we are asked to vote on it every 5 years. Of course, part of an MP's job is to consult their constituents, but they are not bound whatsoever to represent the majority view of their constituents. Apparently 93% of the public apparently don't understand this; the same public that were asked to decide whether to stay in the EU or not...
    - abraae 7y ago
      Questions such as "should we stay in the EU" can't be answered by experts. Economists could perhaps answer some small parts of it - like "will this be net plus for the economy over next 5 years", but even then I'd imagine there would be little consensus. Questions this huge are really the sort of thing that should be put to the unwashed masses. They know as much as anyone else - not much.
      - kybernetikos 7y ago
        > Questions such as "should we stay in the EU" can't be answered by experts. There's an interesting idea for a method of government based on the distinction between values and policy results. > In "futarchy," we would vote on values, but bet on beliefs https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html In my opinion 'should the UK stay in the EU' would very definitely be a question of policy not values. It would actually be pretty difficult to disentangle the brexit question into meaningful values. You could say it's about 'sovereignty', but the UK parliament is as sovereign as it ever was - as the very fact that it's currently leaving demonstrates. In fact for the pure self-interested, short term version of sovereignty, the right thing to do is to plough your own furrow, taking advantage of the benefits and ignoring what you don't like until you are finally kicked out of the EU, which is something we might well see some other EU countries do. Any more nuanced understanding of sovereignty would realize that sovereignty is how we describe an entity that is able to enter into and keep agreements, and exercise infuence on other actors, not one that is unable to because it might restrict its freedom of action. Just as for humans, the end result of refusing all bonds is not freedom, it's extreme restriction. And that's not even considering the strain that leaving the EU puts on relationships with Scotland and Northern Ireland. It wouldn't surprise me at all if down the road brexit ends in break-up. Sovereignty takes on a bit more nuance when you're simultaneously denying it to your constituent members by leaving. You could say it's about 'migration', but that's not a proper value either. I suspect that people who complain about migration have values to do with crime, economics, and needing to be around people 'like them'. The only thing about those values, is that for most of them, migration is exactly the wrong thing to be worried about. As 'experts' know, migrants are less likely to commit crime, and more likely to pay taxes than the native born. I don't think the UK should be leaving the EU for policy reasons. I believe that it's in the interests of the UK, of Europe, of the world to resist the forces trying to disintegrate Europe (I've read enough history to know what happened last time). I think many of the disagreements I have with people who think it should leave are at the level of reality - things that could be established by fact. Trying to claim that it's motivated by differences of values is part of what is making the issue less clear. Of course this is all made extra difficult by the fact that the whole thing has been horrendously mishandled. The government has repeatedly and continually believed things for long periods of time about negotiating with Europe that are simply untrue. It was obvious from the start that this was going to be complicated, and pressing the button to start the ticking timebomb you're sat on top of, is not a great way to negotiate either. Whether you want Brexit or not, invoking article 50 before anyone knew what it meant was the height of idiocy.
  - beaner 7y ago
    Whether vaccines work or not may have a scientific answer, but it is still up to individuals to choose to use them for themselves. Similarly, people make the individual choices to purchase an apple or invite someone into their home. EU participation is just this choice at scale, and the British people have every right to vote on it directly.
    - bigbaguette 7y ago
      For some vaccines, it's not an individual choice. People who choose not to use them for themselves put the rest of the population at risk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
    - Aeolun 7y ago
      > but it is still up to individuals to choose to use them for themselves It should not be. If they represented the Brexit correctly, and instead asked the real question “Would you like your life to get worse in pretty much every possible way?”, then how many people would have voted yes?
      - beaner 7y ago
        It should not be up to individuals to decide whether to buy an apple or invite someone into their home? Your rephrasing is not only hyperbolic but also just a theory. Obviously people would answer no. You might assume people are dumber than they are. Perhaps they are weighing factors you are not which lead them to believe that brexit will not have the outcome you think it will.
        Aeolun 7y ago
        The rephrasing has to be a bit hyperbolic to make the point I think. > Perhaps they are weighing factors you are not which lead them to believe that brexit will not have the outcome you think it will. I am almost positive this is the case, but I unfortunately doubt that most of those factors are grounded in reality. I don’t believe there are many experts that believe Brexit is in any way a good thing, and for me those opinions just hold a lot more weight than those of populist politicians.
  - cronix 7y ago
    > Some things should be left to experts. And yet here we all are, living with the results of the professional experts who know everything. If they are all experts in all things they vote on, why is everything such a mess all of the time?
- LifeLiverTransp 7y ago
  Sorry, your elitistic-technocratic view is deeply undemocratic. Maybe the european union is not at all such a begnign, citizen loving moloch as depicted here. Maybee a disenfranchised population outside of london-city has found that there own fates have been in decline ever since they hope aboard the international-meta-culture and the empty "bigger is better for buisness (and you)". And they have every right to vote for a leave. Great britain has been democratic (at least at home) ever since democracy came to be there. I have greater confidence in the common voter, then in those elites who allowed the world to spin itself apart- to whichs echo chamber you obviously belong.
- vinay427 7y ago
  I'm not actually sure how I feel about direct democracy in general. To provide another example, anyway, even countries like Switzerland that are relatively renowned for their direct democracy don't always make decisions that people approve of in the long term. They were extremely regressive (by Western standards) on the right of women to vote, for instance, and the government is currently dealing with ways to limit freedom of movement with the EU in compliance with a referendum in which the Swiss voted to do so.
- mjw1007 7y ago
  I don't think the idea of a vote on a deep constitutional matter is wrong. But I think it only really works when you have a government saying "we propose to do X, but we'll only do it if the people consent in a referendum". What doesn't work at all is having a referendum offering a major change that the government proposing the referendum thinks is a bad idea.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > Barely anyone in the public was qualified to give their judgement on the merits of continuing inside the EU versus the concept of being out of it. Sure, but this is true of all issues. It doesn't distinguish brexit in any way. The usual thought is that that's how things are supposed to be. If you withheld the franchise to people who were qualified to exercise it, almost nobody would be allowed to vote.
  - jimnotgym 7y ago
    Or you could have a representative democracy like the UK, where you vote in a specialist to go and understand the detail for you. It is an amazing constitutional step to rip this up and start holding referendums!
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      Elected politicians are not specialists in the issues they vote on. They're specialists in winning elections.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > Elected politicians are not specialists in the issues they vote on. Insofar as the things they vote on are laws and they are disproportionately professionals in law, that's not entirely true.
        thaumasiotes 7y ago
        But to the extent those laws purport to govern topics other than the law itself, it is true. In the US, the rules that govern the law are set by judges, not by representatives.
- mettamage 7y ago
  I didn't joke, I'm simply naive about these things. The general public learned a thing or two about referendums, maybe they would now recast their vote? If so, then wouldn't that help? I understand the downvotes as this idea seems silly, I did not mean to propose a silly idea or an idea for fun. I simply don't know the fundamental reasons as to why this idea is silly. It might come as a shock: but I really am this naive. Let that sink in, an HN member, not interested that much in politics, who does not understand why this would not be a remotely feasible way out other than heuristically knowing it's not a good idea. I daresay I'm not the only one. If I'd have a vote in GB, then I'd have voted to stay. I am pro Europe and as a European, I was actually showing people this Kurzgesagt video [1] about why voting for or against the EU is important (apparently I have friends and family, some of them highly educated, who are even less interested in politics than I am). --- I'll read the comments now, I'm sure I'll be better informed after this reading session. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxutY7ss1v4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxutY7ss1v4
bluepnume 7y ago
Neither question gives a specific enough answer to get us out of the current mess. Referenda are great for when you have a specific plan of action, and the question is just "implement this plan: yes or no". Anything less, and nobody is clear what anybody was actually voting for. There's a reason Parliament votes on legislation after it's written, rather than before.
rvz 7y ago
> Since the vote was so close, why not do another referendum on doing another referendum? You say that, (Even if it is a joke) but here in the UK, this is exactly the same as the 'People's Vote' that gives the final say to the people on how the Brexit process should progress, despite the UK already voting leave in 2016. Democracy doesn't care on how 'close' the result was, the people voted to leave and that should be respected. This vote is an instruction from the electorate for parliament to deliver the referendum result and in anyway reversing it, undermines the democratic process. When the Scottish independence referendum of 2014 happened, they accepted the result to remain and that was that. If another referendum goes through and it was leave again, how many times do you need to accept the result? 2? 6? or 19? You might as well roll an unfair dice if you want to hold another referendum.
- mettamage 7y ago
  I'd say 2 is a good number. They have seen the potential consequences a lot better (if this assumption proves to be false, then 1 is a good number, you can test it by amount of people that feel greatly more knowledgeable about this topic), therefore, they have better knowledge to vote.
- pjc50 7y ago
  There will most likely be another Scottish independence vote at some point, especially if Brexit happens. Referendums won by a tiny margin do not settle an issue. They're not final for the same reason that elections aren't final.
  - renaudg 7y ago
    As Nigel Farage famously put it (when he still thought his side would lose) : "A 52-48 result would be unfinished business by a long way"
- renaudg 7y ago
  From a legal standpoint : - the referendum was an advisory, non-binding one. - the electoral commission has found the Vote Leave campaign in breach of electoral law and referred them to the police. From a moral one : - Nearly every single argument the Leave side had put forward has been shown to be a lie. - Foreign interference. - Every single opinion poll in the past two years has shown that people had changed their mind and would now vote Remain.
bitL 7y ago
Leaking such a scare document just tells us that not only voter is uninformed, but also that government is ran by little kids instead of adults. And it's a farce if you have to redo a vote until you get desired outcome (the Lisbon Treaty still left a bad taste). IMO it's all on Cameron and his "competence", destroying UK as an unplanned consequence. Given long standing British democratic tradition, redoing referendum would shake it at its base of respecting the "will of the people, whatever that might be", yet getting a no-deal Brexit is insane.
- jimnotgym 7y ago
  > Given long standing British democratic tradition, It is long standing British democratic tradition that national referendums are unconstitutional.
martin_a 7y ago
> If people still want Great-Britain to leave, then they bought themselves some time and otherwise this whole brexit thing has been resolved. It already has been resolved. People voted for "Leave", so let's do that now as fast as possible. There's no reason in voting until you like the outcome. I have written it before: I'm totally against the Brexit but people wanted a vote, got a vote and the result is clear. While this might have negative consequences for quite a few people, this vote can't be ignored. The UK must leave the EU as soon and hard as possible with all the consequences this brings with it, including border controls and no deals whatsoever with the EU. This will on the one hand be a positive sign for the people: Votes are not useless and the will of the majority is accepted. The outcome might be bad, but that's a common problem with votes at all. On the other hand this will be a good sign/valuable lesson for lots of other European countries. Quite a few are struggling with the concept of the EU and might ask themselves why they are a member of the EU and what they might get out of it. Let the UK be an example to them.
flurdy 7y ago
I am just not sure a binary referendum ever works (I probably can't live in Switzerland). A binary yes and no is too polar with a large greyscale of real-life opinions and preferences. In the Brexit vote a few years ago (on the most miserable birthday I ever had) 48% voted for one option, 52% voted for all the other options combined [1]. [1] https://twitter.com/tastapod/status/1160864612880965633 https://twitter.com/tastapod/status/1160864612880965633

sleavey 7y ago

You joke, but asking the uninformed public to vote on such deep constitutional matters was what got the UK into this mess. Barely anyone in the public was qualified to give their judgement on the merits of continuing inside the EU versus the concept of being out of it. The question was then morphed by the Leave side into "do you think we should stop immigrants coming to the UK?", with the consequences we can all see now.

burtonator 7y ago
It's like voting over whether vaccines work or not... Some things should be left to experts. This is the major criticism of direct democracy.
- dionian 7y ago
  things as important as democratic representation and national sovereignty should require the support of the people, they can be informed by experts, but should not have their decisions made by experts when it comes to peaceful self-determination
  - sleavey 7y ago
    Possibly, but if the public were really to be trusted to make decisions on national sovereignty they should not have been asked to decide between the status quo and some abstract, undefined future outside the EU. One of the biggest problems with Brexit was that it meant so many different things to that 52%.
  - thomascgalvin 7y ago
    There isn't a good answer to this dilemma. On the one hand, you're right, the people are sovereign and should not have their rights trampled by an unelected hegemony. On the other hand, people are stupid, and often too stupid to be trusted to make decisions related to complex matters on which the general person is not an expert. Worse, bad actors have figured out how to exploit freedom of speech to weaponize this stupidity. So we're now in a position where a fundamental human right is also the direct cause of significant human misery.
- sleavey 7y ago
  Indeed. A recent poll was quoted on yesterday's "Any Questions?" show on BBC Radio 4 by a Brexiteer, which apparently asked the public "should MPs represent their own views or those of their constituents?". Some small number of voters - I forget, but it was around 7% - thought they should represent their own views and the rest thought those of their constituents. This was, in the Brexiteer's view, evidence that MPs delaying Brexit in any form was anti-democratic given that 52% voted for "it" (where "it" was sadly not defined). Thing is, we elect MPs exactly so they can express their views in parliament. They're supposed to be experts, or at least they are given resources to consult experts on matters that affect their constituents. They are resolutely not for representing their constituents' views - that's why they publish a manifesto of what they want to do and we are asked to vote on it every 5 years. Of course, part of an MP's job is to consult their constituents, but they are not bound whatsoever to represent the majority view of their constituents. Apparently 93% of the public apparently don't understand this; the same public that were asked to decide whether to stay in the EU or not...
  - abraae 7y ago
    Questions such as "should we stay in the EU" can't be answered by experts. Economists could perhaps answer some small parts of it - like "will this be net plus for the economy over next 5 years", but even then I'd imagine there would be little consensus. Questions this huge are really the sort of thing that should be put to the unwashed masses. They know as much as anyone else - not much.
    - kybernetikos 7y ago
      > Questions such as "should we stay in the EU" can't be answered by experts. There's an interesting idea for a method of government based on the distinction between values and policy results. > In "futarchy," we would vote on values, but bet on beliefs https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html In my opinion 'should the UK stay in the EU' would very definitely be a question of policy not values. It would actually be pretty difficult to disentangle the brexit question into meaningful values. You could say it's about 'sovereignty', but the UK parliament is as sovereign as it ever was - as the very fact that it's currently leaving demonstrates. In fact for the pure self-interested, short term version of sovereignty, the right thing to do is to plough your own furrow, taking advantage of the benefits and ignoring what you don't like until you are finally kicked out of the EU, which is something we might well see some other EU countries do. Any more nuanced understanding of sovereignty would realize that sovereignty is how we describe an entity that is able to enter into and keep agreements, and exercise infuence on other actors, not one that is unable to because it might restrict its freedom of action. Just as for humans, the end result of refusing all bonds is not freedom, it's extreme restriction. And that's not even considering the strain that leaving the EU puts on relationships with Scotland and Northern Ireland. It wouldn't surprise me at all if down the road brexit ends in break-up. Sovereignty takes on a bit more nuance when you're simultaneously denying it to your constituent members by leaving. You could say it's about 'migration', but that's not a proper value either. I suspect that people who complain about migration have values to do with crime, economics, and needing to be around people 'like them'. The only thing about those values, is that for most of them, migration is exactly the wrong thing to be worried about. As 'experts' know, migrants are less likely to commit crime, and more likely to pay taxes than the native born. I don't think the UK should be leaving the EU for policy reasons. I believe that it's in the interests of the UK, of Europe, of the world to resist the forces trying to disintegrate Europe (I've read enough history to know what happened last time). I think many of the disagreements I have with people who think it should leave are at the level of reality - things that could be established by fact. Trying to claim that it's motivated by differences of values is part of what is making the issue less clear. Of course this is all made extra difficult by the fact that the whole thing has been horrendously mishandled. The government has repeatedly and continually believed things for long periods of time about negotiating with Europe that are simply untrue. It was obvious from the start that this was going to be complicated, and pressing the button to start the ticking timebomb you're sat on top of, is not a great way to negotiate either. Whether you want Brexit or not, invoking article 50 before anyone knew what it meant was the height of idiocy.
- beaner 7y ago
  Whether vaccines work or not may have a scientific answer, but it is still up to individuals to choose to use them for themselves. Similarly, people make the individual choices to purchase an apple or invite someone into their home. EU participation is just this choice at scale, and the British people have every right to vote on it directly.
  - bigbaguette 7y ago
    For some vaccines, it's not an individual choice. People who choose not to use them for themselves put the rest of the population at risk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    > but it is still up to individuals to choose to use them for themselves It should not be. If they represented the Brexit correctly, and instead asked the real question “Would you like your life to get worse in pretty much every possible way?”, then how many people would have voted yes?
    - beaner 7y ago
      It should not be up to individuals to decide whether to buy an apple or invite someone into their home? Your rephrasing is not only hyperbolic but also just a theory. Obviously people would answer no. You might assume people are dumber than they are. Perhaps they are weighing factors you are not which lead them to believe that brexit will not have the outcome you think it will.
      - Aeolun 7y ago
        The rephrasing has to be a bit hyperbolic to make the point I think. > Perhaps they are weighing factors you are not which lead them to believe that brexit will not have the outcome you think it will. I am almost positive this is the case, but I unfortunately doubt that most of those factors are grounded in reality. I don’t believe there are many experts that believe Brexit is in any way a good thing, and for me those opinions just hold a lot more weight than those of populist politicians.
- cronix 7y ago
  > Some things should be left to experts. And yet here we all are, living with the results of the professional experts who know everything. If they are all experts in all things they vote on, why is everything such a mess all of the time?
LifeLiverTransp 7y ago
Sorry, your elitistic-technocratic view is deeply undemocratic. Maybe the european union is not at all such a begnign, citizen loving moloch as depicted here. Maybee a disenfranchised population outside of london-city has found that there own fates have been in decline ever since they hope aboard the international-meta-culture and the empty "bigger is better for buisness (and you)". And they have every right to vote for a leave. Great britain has been democratic (at least at home) ever since democracy came to be there. I have greater confidence in the common voter, then in those elites who allowed the world to spin itself apart- to whichs echo chamber you obviously belong.
vinay427 7y ago
I'm not actually sure how I feel about direct democracy in general. To provide another example, anyway, even countries like Switzerland that are relatively renowned for their direct democracy don't always make decisions that people approve of in the long term. They were extremely regressive (by Western standards) on the right of women to vote, for instance, and the government is currently dealing with ways to limit freedom of movement with the EU in compliance with a referendum in which the Swiss voted to do so.
mjw1007 7y ago
I don't think the idea of a vote on a deep constitutional matter is wrong. But I think it only really works when you have a government saying "we propose to do X, but we'll only do it if the people consent in a referendum". What doesn't work at all is having a referendum offering a major change that the government proposing the referendum thinks is a bad idea.
thaumasiotes 7y ago
> Barely anyone in the public was qualified to give their judgement on the merits of continuing inside the EU versus the concept of being out of it. Sure, but this is true of all issues. It doesn't distinguish brexit in any way. The usual thought is that that's how things are supposed to be. If you withheld the franchise to people who were qualified to exercise it, almost nobody would be allowed to vote.
- jimnotgym 7y ago
  Or you could have a representative democracy like the UK, where you vote in a specialist to go and understand the detail for you. It is an amazing constitutional step to rip this up and start holding referendums!
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    Elected politicians are not specialists in the issues they vote on. They're specialists in winning elections.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > Elected politicians are not specialists in the issues they vote on. Insofar as the things they vote on are laws and they are disproportionately professionals in law, that's not entirely true.
      - thaumasiotes 7y ago
        But to the extent those laws purport to govern topics other than the law itself, it is true. In the US, the rules that govern the law are set by judges, not by representatives.
mettamage 7y ago
I didn't joke, I'm simply naive about these things. The general public learned a thing or two about referendums, maybe they would now recast their vote? If so, then wouldn't that help? I understand the downvotes as this idea seems silly, I did not mean to propose a silly idea or an idea for fun. I simply don't know the fundamental reasons as to why this idea is silly. It might come as a shock: but I really am this naive. Let that sink in, an HN member, not interested that much in politics, who does not understand why this would not be a remotely feasible way out other than heuristically knowing it's not a good idea. I daresay I'm not the only one. If I'd have a vote in GB, then I'd have voted to stay. I am pro Europe and as a European, I was actually showing people this Kurzgesagt video [1] about why voting for or against the EU is important (apparently I have friends and family, some of them highly educated, who are even less interested in politics than I am). --- I'll read the comments now, I'm sure I'll be better informed after this reading session. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxutY7ss1v4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxutY7ss1v4

bluepnume 7y ago

Neither question gives a specific enough answer to get us out of the current mess. Referenda are great for when you have a specific plan of action, and the question is just "implement this plan: yes or no". Anything less, and nobody is clear what anybody was actually voting for. There's a reason Parliament votes on legislation after it's written, rather than before.

rvz 7y ago

> Since the vote was so close, why not do another referendum on doing another referendum? You say that, (Even if it is a joke) but here in the UK, this is exactly the same as the 'People's Vote' that gives the final say to the people on how the Brexit process should progress, despite the UK already voting leave in 2016. Democracy doesn't care on how 'close' the result was, the people voted to leave and that should be respected. This vote is an instruction from the electorate for parliament to deliver the referendum result and in anyway reversing it, undermines the democratic process. When the Scottish independence referendum of 2014 happened, they accepted the result to remain and that was that. If another referendum goes through and it was leave again, how many times do you need to accept the result? 2? 6? or 19? You might as well roll an unfair dice if you want to hold another referendum.

mettamage 7y ago
I'd say 2 is a good number. They have seen the potential consequences a lot better (if this assumption proves to be false, then 1 is a good number, you can test it by amount of people that feel greatly more knowledgeable about this topic), therefore, they have better knowledge to vote.
pjc50 7y ago
There will most likely be another Scottish independence vote at some point, especially if Brexit happens. Referendums won by a tiny margin do not settle an issue. They're not final for the same reason that elections aren't final.
- renaudg 7y ago
  As Nigel Farage famously put it (when he still thought his side would lose) : "A 52-48 result would be unfinished business by a long way"
renaudg 7y ago
From a legal standpoint : - the referendum was an advisory, non-binding one. - the electoral commission has found the Vote Leave campaign in breach of electoral law and referred them to the police. From a moral one : - Nearly every single argument the Leave side had put forward has been shown to be a lie. - Foreign interference. - Every single opinion poll in the past two years has shown that people had changed their mind and would now vote Remain.

bitL 7y ago

Leaking such a scare document just tells us that not only voter is uninformed, but also that government is ran by little kids instead of adults. And it's a farce if you have to redo a vote until you get desired outcome (the Lisbon Treaty still left a bad taste). IMO it's all on Cameron and his "competence", destroying UK as an unplanned consequence. Given long standing British democratic tradition, redoing referendum would shake it at its base of respecting the "will of the people, whatever that might be", yet getting a no-deal Brexit is insane.

jimnotgym 7y ago
> Given long standing British democratic tradition, It is long standing British democratic tradition that national referendums are unconstitutional.

martin_a 7y ago

> If people still want Great-Britain to leave, then they bought themselves some time and otherwise this whole brexit thing has been resolved. It already has been resolved. People voted for "Leave", so let's do that now as fast as possible. There's no reason in voting until you like the outcome. I have written it before: I'm totally against the Brexit but people wanted a vote, got a vote and the result is clear. While this might have negative consequences for quite a few people, this vote can't be ignored. The UK must leave the EU as soon and hard as possible with all the consequences this brings with it, including border controls and no deals whatsoever with the EU. This will on the one hand be a positive sign for the people: Votes are not useless and the will of the majority is accepted. The outcome might be bad, but that's a common problem with votes at all. On the other hand this will be a good sign/valuable lesson for lots of other European countries. Quite a few are struggling with the concept of the EU and might ask themselves why they are a member of the EU and what they might get out of it. Let the UK be an example to them.

flurdy 7y ago

I am just not sure a binary referendum ever works (I probably can't live in Switzerland). A binary yes and no is too polar with a large greyscale of real-life opinions and preferences. In the Brexit vote a few years ago (on the most miserable birthday I ever had) 48% voted for one option, 52% voted for all the other options combined [1]. [1] https://twitter.com/tastapod/status/1160864612880965633 https://twitter.com/tastapod/status/1160864612880965633