6 ms·

The people voted for it. Just give it to them. If the outcome is bad, that's just a lesson in consequences...for everyone. Hope they vote better the next tim

The people voted for it. Just give it to them. If the outcome is bad, that's just a lesson in consequences...for everyone. Hope they vote better the next time...if you feel that it was the wrong choice. The amount of contempt being expressed, from many sides, for democratic process is disgusting.

gambiting 7y ago
The argument here is that I literally don't believe anyone in this country has voted for a no deal brexit. I fully accept the result and I don't even care about remaining anymore - but leaving on WTO terms has no mandate, that's not what anyone has voted for and while the government has the responsibility to implement the will of the people it also has the responsibility to not wreck the country in the process.
- nailer 7y ago
  The ballot question was: > Do you want Britain to remain or leave the EU? With the accompanying pamphlet stating: > The government will implement what you decide. This includes the government negotiating with the EU. If the government must accept any deal the EU offers (because someone dislikes No Deal being on the table) then the EU will offer the worst deal possible, and has done so (the current deal has been rejected by parliament three times).
  - gambiting 7y ago
    As someone else already pointed out - a "no deal" in reality means "no deal until any deal is reached". UK cannot be on WTO terms with the EU forever, but by going on them in the first place the economy is taking a hit until something else is negotiated. And that negotiation will be exactly the same as now - backstop, immigrants, EU regulations - none of those issues disappear with a no deal. They just get delayed a little bit. It feels like a no deal is hitting your own face out of spite for the other side.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    "The government will implement what you decide." Well there's your problem! That's a vague reference. To a lawyer, it might obviously refer to the voter's decision with respect to the immediately preceding question. To the average UK voter, it might also refer to her decision that she wants blue skies, decent food, and a personal unicorn pony for everyone. It's hard to vote against unicorn ponies. [EDIT:] Apparently parent just pointlessly made up something, to which I credulously responded. Sorry for the distraction.
    - QuesnayJr 7y ago
      Except the ballot didn't actually say that. Here's what the ballot looked like: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2016_EU_Referendum_Ballot_Paper.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2016_EU_Referendum_B...
      - nailer 7y ago
        The information leaflet provided by the government contained this statement. The ballot paper itself only provides the question (as is the nature of ballot papers). I suspect you probably know that. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmlykgDXEAAGs6C.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmlykgDXEAAGs6C.jpg
        gambiting 7y ago
        The contents of the leaflet are irrelevant, the leaflet was not provided at the time of voting and no such statement was on the ballot. It holds exactly as much legal weight as "£350 million for the NHS" printed on the side of the bus. If you took the government to court over it the court would most likely decide that information printed on leaflets have no legal standing, even if they are distributed by the government.
        nailer 7y ago
        The leaflet was an official government communication provided to every household in the UK. And yes, 350M came from the Office of National Statistics, which is pretty solid.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    There was, and is, no legal obligation on a UK government to take note of a referendum. They're just a big opinion poll, legally speaking. In some ways that's a big part of the problem. Other countries, e.g. Switzerland, that use referenda have rules about super-majorities, campaigning and spending, when and if they will become law and so on. Ensures that you don't get vague hand-wavy referendum that is campaigned as "we'll get a deal easily" morphing into WTO terms hard brexit some painful time later.
    - nailer 7y ago
      That is correct. There obligation is moral.
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        Point being there is no moral mandate on such a thin margin of the minority who voted when there were laws broken in the campaign finance, the claims made and so forth. At least elections have the veneer of election law behind them. Referendum nations have a similar veneer behind referenda - to decide whether it was fairly arrived at, etc. Switzerland not long threw out a result because the electorate had been given some sort of misleading information in the campaign.
        nailer 7y ago
        Well we lost by something like 1.5 million people. Overturning the referendum result because of campaign finance law seems somewhat excessive.
        NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        Perhaps so, but I think it would be better to have had those parameters established beforehand, and where the limits of what was considered fair under law were. Maybe people could consider it settled even if they didn't like the result Anything would be better than how we did do it, really. :)
- mkohlmyr 7y ago
  Either you (literally) didn't mean "literally", or you're being wilfully ignorant. There's a significant minority who are more than happy with the idea of a no-deal Brexit and who voted for it with the understanding that may be the outcome. As far as the last part of the final sentence goes, one could also make a similar argument that the remain side should have shown some responsibility with regards to not utterly destroying the negotiating position in order to purposefully sabotage Brexit such that it becomes unsalvageable. But hey, them's the breaks and here we are. I don't know what happened to make people so sure that the other side is always either evil or was tricked into its position, but it seems to be the way these days. Sometimes people just disagree. Sometimes they even have perfectly understandable reasons for feeling that way. We would all do well to presume our personal objective "rightness" a little less often in this day and age.
  - gambiting 7y ago
    >>Either you (literally) didn't mean "literally", or you're being wilfully ignorant. I do literally mean literally. Maybe I am wilfully ignorant then. >> There's a significant minority who are more than happy with the idea of a no-deal Brexit and who voted for it with the understanding that may be the outcome. See, I just don't believe that part. I don't believe that 3 years ago in 2016 there was any significant(or even greater than >1000) number of people who understood that if nothing is negotiated with the EU the UK will leave on WTO terms, who fully understood what that meant for the British trade position and who were still happy to proceed. Sure there is a lot of people who say that nowadays, but I just don't believe there was enough information about this 3 years ago for anyone but the most politically and economically engaged people to make such a choice and realistically be happy with a no-deal. >>As far as the last part of the final sentence goes, one could also make a similar argument that the remain side should have shown some responsibility with regards to not utterly destroying the negotiating position in order to purposefully sabotage Brexit such that it becomes unsalvageable. That just sounds like saying that half of the British society should have just shut up and said nothing for the 3 years while the government was negotiating. That's impossible in a democracy - not only people should be able to voice their opinions and displeasure with what is happening, they should also be able to change their minds about decisions already taken.
- klwejchkwejrhc 7y ago
  The text of the 2016 referendum was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" No mention of deal or no-deal. Logically speaking, every single person who voted to leave in 2016 either voted for no-deal as a possible mode of leaving or misunderstood the text of the referendum.
  - gambiting 7y ago
    The problem with this argument is that it is built on an assumption that leave means "leave by any means". UK could also leave by starting a war with France, and yet I suspect that wouldn't be an acceptable solution either. And this is not a programming language, if-this-then-that doesn't apply here - to say that logically someone voting leave must have accepted the possiblity of a no-deal brexit is more then naive, there is plenty of documented cases where people voted leave just to say fuck you to the government because they were tired of austerity and being ignored for decades, not because they have any strong feelings either way towards the European Union. Obviously I'm not saying that it's everyone who voted leave, but we cannot apply the "logically if they did this then it means that" here.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mey 7y ago
Not a UK resident, US based but watching from afar. My understanding is the vote was It was specifically non-binding Was not a super majority There was no definition of what was being proposed (Brexit means brexit...) In my US voting, at state level and federal, I vote for specific actions and languages. Be it a person to a position, or specific language to be changed/added/removed in a law. There was no voter pamphlet with this, no definition, etc etc etc. Not sure I see that as a democratic process, more a survey.
NoodleIncident 7y ago
You've posted 4 comments in this thread already. They're the exact same responses I see 20 times in every reddit thread, but in this case they're all from the same person, so maybe some actual discussion can happen. It seems self-evident to me that a set of people exists that wants Brexit with a "good" deal, but does not want "no-deal" Brexit. Which way do you think those people voted on the original non-binding referendum? Which way do you think those people would vote on a second referendum, with the actual choice between "no-deal" and "remain"? It is also self-evident that the same people okay with "no-deal" Brexit voted "Leave" on the original referendum. Suppose a second referendum is held, and "Remain" wins because the "good-deal" Brexiters above are no longer voting with these "no-deal" Brexiters. Weren't the "no-deal" Brexiters a minority the whole time? Why should this minority get what they want, at the expense of the majority? That's the current trajectory.
jibal 7y ago
Some people's version of "the democratic process" is equivalent to "The people have spoken and, having spoken, must never speak again". That is indeed disgusting, as is the claim that pushback against such a ridiculous and anti-democratic idea is "contempt ... for democratic process". "If the outcome is bad, that's just a lesson in consequences..." This patronizing authoritarian attitude that entire nations must be punished when some of their citizens make errors in judgment is itself an example of terrible judgment but comes without consequences.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- busterarm 7y ago
  I think entire nations must be punished when the ruling class decides that they aren't representatives of the peoples' will. That's why I live in a country where people fought and died for that privilege of being a representative democracy. I think it's patronizing and authoritarian to shove pointless referendums in front of your peoples' face that you have absolutely zero intention of implementing if they vote the way you didn't expect. I think it's patronizing and authoritarian to tell those people that they don't know what's good for them. I think it's patronizing and authoritarian to tell them that they didn't really mean the terms that they voted for, as if they aren't capable of drawing conclusions from their actions and dealing with the consequences.
  - jibal 7y ago
    Again, terrible judgment.

gambiting 7y ago

The argument here is that I literally don't believe anyone in this country has voted for a no deal brexit. I fully accept the result and I don't even care about remaining anymore - but leaving on WTO terms has no mandate, that's not what anyone has voted for and while the government has the responsibility to implement the will of the people it also has the responsibility to not wreck the country in the process.

nailer 7y ago
The ballot question was: > Do you want Britain to remain or leave the EU? With the accompanying pamphlet stating: > The government will implement what you decide. This includes the government negotiating with the EU. If the government must accept any deal the EU offers (because someone dislikes No Deal being on the table) then the EU will offer the worst deal possible, and has done so (the current deal has been rejected by parliament three times).
- gambiting 7y ago
  As someone else already pointed out - a "no deal" in reality means "no deal until any deal is reached". UK cannot be on WTO terms with the EU forever, but by going on them in the first place the economy is taking a hit until something else is negotiated. And that negotiation will be exactly the same as now - backstop, immigrants, EU regulations - none of those issues disappear with a no deal. They just get delayed a little bit. It feels like a no deal is hitting your own face out of spite for the other side.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  "The government will implement what you decide." Well there's your problem! That's a vague reference. To a lawyer, it might obviously refer to the voter's decision with respect to the immediately preceding question. To the average UK voter, it might also refer to her decision that she wants blue skies, decent food, and a personal unicorn pony for everyone. It's hard to vote against unicorn ponies. [EDIT:] Apparently parent just pointlessly made up something, to which I credulously responded. Sorry for the distraction.
  - QuesnayJr 7y ago
    Except the ballot didn't actually say that. Here's what the ballot looked like: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2016_EU_Referendum_Ballot_Paper.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2016_EU_Referendum_B...
    - nailer 7y ago
      The information leaflet provided by the government contained this statement. The ballot paper itself only provides the question (as is the nature of ballot papers). I suspect you probably know that. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmlykgDXEAAGs6C.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmlykgDXEAAGs6C.jpg
      - gambiting 7y ago
        The contents of the leaflet are irrelevant, the leaflet was not provided at the time of voting and no such statement was on the ballot. It holds exactly as much legal weight as "£350 million for the NHS" printed on the side of the bus. If you took the government to court over it the court would most likely decide that information printed on leaflets have no legal standing, even if they are distributed by the government.
        nailer 7y ago
        The leaflet was an official government communication provided to every household in the UK. And yes, 350M came from the Office of National Statistics, which is pretty solid.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  There was, and is, no legal obligation on a UK government to take note of a referendum. They're just a big opinion poll, legally speaking. In some ways that's a big part of the problem. Other countries, e.g. Switzerland, that use referenda have rules about super-majorities, campaigning and spending, when and if they will become law and so on. Ensures that you don't get vague hand-wavy referendum that is campaigned as "we'll get a deal easily" morphing into WTO terms hard brexit some painful time later.
  - nailer 7y ago
    That is correct. There obligation is moral.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Point being there is no moral mandate on such a thin margin of the minority who voted when there were laws broken in the campaign finance, the claims made and so forth. At least elections have the veneer of election law behind them. Referendum nations have a similar veneer behind referenda - to decide whether it was fairly arrived at, etc. Switzerland not long threw out a result because the electorate had been given some sort of misleading information in the campaign.
      - nailer 7y ago
        Well we lost by something like 1.5 million people. Overturning the referendum result because of campaign finance law seems somewhat excessive.
        NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        Perhaps so, but I think it would be better to have had those parameters established beforehand, and where the limits of what was considered fair under law were. Maybe people could consider it settled even if they didn't like the result Anything would be better than how we did do it, really. :)
mkohlmyr 7y ago
Either you (literally) didn't mean "literally", or you're being wilfully ignorant. There's a significant minority who are more than happy with the idea of a no-deal Brexit and who voted for it with the understanding that may be the outcome. As far as the last part of the final sentence goes, one could also make a similar argument that the remain side should have shown some responsibility with regards to not utterly destroying the negotiating position in order to purposefully sabotage Brexit such that it becomes unsalvageable. But hey, them's the breaks and here we are. I don't know what happened to make people so sure that the other side is always either evil or was tricked into its position, but it seems to be the way these days. Sometimes people just disagree. Sometimes they even have perfectly understandable reasons for feeling that way. We would all do well to presume our personal objective "rightness" a little less often in this day and age.
- gambiting 7y ago
  >>Either you (literally) didn't mean "literally", or you're being wilfully ignorant. I do literally mean literally. Maybe I am wilfully ignorant then. >> There's a significant minority who are more than happy with the idea of a no-deal Brexit and who voted for it with the understanding that may be the outcome. See, I just don't believe that part. I don't believe that 3 years ago in 2016 there was any significant(or even greater than >1000) number of people who understood that if nothing is negotiated with the EU the UK will leave on WTO terms, who fully understood what that meant for the British trade position and who were still happy to proceed. Sure there is a lot of people who say that nowadays, but I just don't believe there was enough information about this 3 years ago for anyone but the most politically and economically engaged people to make such a choice and realistically be happy with a no-deal. >>As far as the last part of the final sentence goes, one could also make a similar argument that the remain side should have shown some responsibility with regards to not utterly destroying the negotiating position in order to purposefully sabotage Brexit such that it becomes unsalvageable. That just sounds like saying that half of the British society should have just shut up and said nothing for the 3 years while the government was negotiating. That's impossible in a democracy - not only people should be able to voice their opinions and displeasure with what is happening, they should also be able to change their minds about decisions already taken.
klwejchkwejrhc 7y ago
The text of the 2016 referendum was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" No mention of deal or no-deal. Logically speaking, every single person who voted to leave in 2016 either voted for no-deal as a possible mode of leaving or misunderstood the text of the referendum.
- gambiting 7y ago
  The problem with this argument is that it is built on an assumption that leave means "leave by any means". UK could also leave by starting a war with France, and yet I suspect that wouldn't be an acceptable solution either. And this is not a programming language, if-this-then-that doesn't apply here - to say that logically someone voting leave must have accepted the possiblity of a no-deal brexit is more then naive, there is plenty of documented cases where people voted leave just to say fuck you to the government because they were tired of austerity and being ignored for decades, not because they have any strong feelings either way towards the European Union. Obviously I'm not saying that it's everyone who voted leave, but we cannot apply the "logically if they did this then it means that" here.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mey 7y ago

Not a UK resident, US based but watching from afar. My understanding is the vote was It was specifically non-binding Was not a super majority There was no definition of what was being proposed (Brexit means brexit...) In my US voting, at state level and federal, I vote for specific actions and languages. Be it a person to a position, or specific language to be changed/added/removed in a law. There was no voter pamphlet with this, no definition, etc etc etc. Not sure I see that as a democratic process, more a survey.

NoodleIncident 7y ago

You've posted 4 comments in this thread already. They're the exact same responses I see 20 times in every reddit thread, but in this case they're all from the same person, so maybe some actual discussion can happen. It seems self-evident to me that a set of people exists that wants Brexit with a "good" deal, but does not want "no-deal" Brexit. Which way do you think those people voted on the original non-binding referendum? Which way do you think those people would vote on a second referendum, with the actual choice between "no-deal" and "remain"? It is also self-evident that the same people okay with "no-deal" Brexit voted "Leave" on the original referendum. Suppose a second referendum is held, and "Remain" wins because the "good-deal" Brexiters above are no longer voting with these "no-deal" Brexiters. Weren't the "no-deal" Brexiters a minority the whole time? Why should this minority get what they want, at the expense of the majority? That's the current trajectory.

jibal 7y ago

Some people's version of "the democratic process" is equivalent to "The people have spoken and, having spoken, must never speak again". That is indeed disgusting, as is the claim that pushback against such a ridiculous and anti-democratic idea is "contempt ... for democratic process". "If the outcome is bad, that's just a lesson in consequences..." This patronizing authoritarian attitude that entire nations must be punished when some of their citizens make errors in judgment is itself an example of terrible judgment but comes without consequences.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
busterarm 7y ago
I think entire nations must be punished when the ruling class decides that they aren't representatives of the peoples' will. That's why I live in a country where people fought and died for that privilege of being a representative democracy. I think it's patronizing and authoritarian to shove pointless referendums in front of your peoples' face that you have absolutely zero intention of implementing if they vote the way you didn't expect. I think it's patronizing and authoritarian to tell those people that they don't know what's good for them. I think it's patronizing and authoritarian to tell them that they didn't really mean the terms that they voted for, as if they aren't capable of drawing conclusions from their actions and dealing with the consequences.
- jibal 7y ago
  Again, terrible judgment.