7 ms·

It seems like it's well past time for a 2nd referendum. And I don't buy this hogwash about undercutting democracy and the people having spoken. If my partner a

It seems like it's well past time for a 2nd referendum. And I don't buy this hogwash about undercutting democracy and the people having spoken. If my partner and I decide together to buy a car, and then find out later that we can only get financing at 20%, then it is no way disingenuous to have another talk about whether we really need a new car. On the contrary, I would be quite peeved if my partner went ahead and blithely signed a 20% loan for a car without further discussion, and defended that decision by saying, "We already talked about this."

busterarm 7y ago
> On the contrary, I would be quite peeved if my partner went ahead and signed a 20% loan for a car without soliciting further discussion, and defended that decision by saying, "We already talked about this, and 20% is all the dealer was willing to offer." Losing an election does not equate to not having a say.
- eloff 7y ago
  Having a say before understanding the deal on offer is another matter though.
  - busterarm 7y ago
    That's the thing about any change in governance though...you fundamentally cannot know what will come out the other side. Nobody wages war or starts a revolution knowing what the outcome will be either. That's the nature of change. We're fortunate enough to live in a world where we can vote for change instead of kill for it.
    - jibal 7y ago
      "you fundamentally cannot know what will come out the other side" This is a baseless and false claim. "Nobody wages war or starts a revolution knowing what the outcome will be either" Even if true, this isn't relevant ... it cherry picks extremely chaotic changes to shore up a completely invalid argument. "That's the nature of change." No, it isn't ... well understood, predictable changes are executed all the time. "We're fortunate enough to live in a world where we can vote for change instead of kill for it." Not relevant.
      - busterarm 7y ago
        >>"you fundamentally cannot know what will come out the other side" > This is a baseless and false claim. Last I checked it's impossible to predict the future. Please educate me otherwise, because we'll make a fortune in the bond markets.
        jibal 7y ago
        google "science"
    - eloff 7y ago
      None of that means I can't have a second say after two years and a better understanding of the repercussions. In HN speak I need to evaluate my trajectory and either pivot our stay the course. Just not allowing myself that freedom is just bad policy film a personal, business, or political perspective. People can and sometimes should have a chance to change their minds.
      - busterarm 7y ago
        A political system has to survive the reality that some voters are stupid. Which voters are stupid is surely a point of contention, but in the climate where everyone is convinced of their righteousness, everyone thinks someone is stupid. You cannot helicopter parent your voting populace. Otherwise votes just don't matter. If you feel that way, don't give people the right to vote in the first place. Your political system has to provide an environment where the government (as in the will of the people) can safely fail at doing something important. IMO, regardless of what is correct, a handful of insane politicians in the UK played a stupid game thinking they could avert a minor crisis and instead created a catastrophe. Those responsible should be pilloried and everyone should learn a great lesson from this. That said, I think that if the UK wants to remain intact, it is forced to take it on the chin and follow through with this. Afterwards, the country can unite and pick up the pieces and fix it. The EU should also realize the opportunity it has here and be lenient. The problem is that France and Germany can't stand the threat to their Union and will throw their weight around like the bullies they are. The Scandinavians will be convinced as always that they're just better than everyone else and let the UK suffer. The smaller EU countries simultaneously don't give a shit and also await the conclusion of this so they can see which way the wind blows. I think if it goes up for referendum again, we'll actually see only 60% of the voter turnout of the last one. Could still go either way. In either case, the UK won't survive it. The only way forward is through.
        somebadguy 7y ago
        You are an ignorant cunt. Jog on loser
        eloff 7y ago
  - pessimizer 7y ago
    People don't understand any more about the deal (or lack of one) than they did before they voted. They've just been subjected to endless Y2K-scale hype for an extended period of time.
    - eloff 7y ago
      That's wrong and also an unnecessarily patronizing view of the intelligence of the people of the UK. People are smarter and have a better ability to learn complex topics than they get credit for. It's more a problem of garbage in garbage out.
    - purple_ducks 7y ago
      > People don't understand any more about the deal (or lack of one) than they did before they voted. They now know the realities of a no-deal and the implications it will have. That's a lot more than they knew before the vote.
    - IanCal 7y ago
      Since the deal did not exist before the original vote, it would be hard for people to understand less about it now.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  Winning an advisory referendum with a 52% majority, doesn't always equate to parliament having to take the advice. edit - people can disagree with me all they like, however I am not just making this up, so disagreeing with me will not make this go away. Here is the 'Referendums in the United Kingdom - Constitution Committee', from the UK House of Lords; '223. We recognise that because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of public opinion.' https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldco... I suppose you could try to argue that 52% is 'decisive'.
- jibal 7y ago
  Non sequitur that has nothing to do with what's being discussed. Notably, a new referundum is about letting those who voted for the winner getting a greater say.
gambiting 7y ago
Exactly. The example I like to give is: imagine if the government held a referendum asking "do you want to pay less taxes, yes or no?". Yes wins(who wouldn't want to pay less taxes, right?), And then 3 years later the government says "ok, we'll slash taxes by 90% but we'll close the NHS and all public schools. You can go to the public sector for either, so it's all good. And remember, you voted yes, so holding another referendum to see if that's definitely what you want would be undemocratic now!".
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- vidanay 7y ago
  You just made millions of stupid, ignorant Americans excited for the possibility.
nailer 7y ago
> find out later that we can only get financing at 20% Is that because someone decided you had to accept any deal the car salesman made? Perhaps you should have had the option of walking away.
- fao_ 7y ago
  But in this example, 'not having a car' means that we can't get to our job on time, so we lose income. Likewise, 'not being in the EU' means spending millions, possibly billions of pounds on lawyers to renegotiate deals (that we already have). We've already had to borrow lawyers from the EU because we do not have the legal manpower to enact Brexit! The worst thing about this is that the position the UK will be in, means that it does not have a good standpoint for bargaining. If the US loses trade deals with the UK, that's not terrible because the US still has trade deals with hundreds of other countries. If the UK loses trade deals with the US, that's catastrophic and puts us in a worse position for every other trade deal after that. The entire reason why Asia sees Brexit as "an oppotunity"[1][2] is because Britain will be on the back foot for all trade deals, they can negotiate harder and we are in a compromising position. [1]: https://asiahouse.org/india-sees-brexit-opportunity-indian-high-commissioner-yk-sinha/ https://asiahouse.org/india-sees-brexit-opportunity-indian-h... [2]: https://www.worldfinance.com/home/asia-finds-post-brexit-opportunities https://www.worldfinance.com/home/asia-finds-post-brexit-opp...
  - nailer 7y ago
    And the salesperson loses income. Which is a pity as you buy cars pretty regularly. It's almost like, I don't know, a bilateral trade agreement. The UK is using lawyers from Europe, not from the EU, which is a political body. It's a very important distinction: the UK is withdrawing from a body where unelected people write laws, not making a xenophobic statement, despite people's attempts to frame it that way.
    - fao_ 7y ago
      > the UK is withdrawing from a body where unelected people write laws They are elected. "A Member of the European Parliament (MEP) is a person who has been elected to serve as a popular representative in the European Parliament" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_European_Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_European_Parl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_of_the_European_Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_of_the_European_Parliam... http://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/be-heard/elections http://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/be-heard/el... > not making a xenophobic statement, despite people's attempts to frame it that way. Please explain why you think Joe Cox was murdered. Please explain why you think so many UKIP members are outed racists[0][1][2][3][4] (Notably, even Farage left UKIP because of the extremism). Please explain what you think the British National Front stands for. 0: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/01/henry-bolton-s-girlfriend-didn-t-bring-down-ukip-party-s-racism-problem-did https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/01/henry-bolto... 1: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/26/ukip-anti-muslim-bigotry-racist-europhobic-tories https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/26/ukip-a... 2: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/henry-bolton-ukip-racism-girlfriend-new-leader-jo-marney-a8172056.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/henry-bolton-ukip-racis... 3: https://www.itv.com/news/2018-12-04/former-ukip-leader-nigel-farage-quits-party/ https://www.itv.com/news/2018-12-04/former-ukip-leader-nigel... 4: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ukip-choking-racism-its-wonderful-13681022 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ukip-choking-racism-i...
vkou 7y ago
What will the point of a 2nd referendum be? Is it going to be another yes/no vote? If so, why not have a third, fourth, and fifth referendum, until you get the result you want? Is it going to be a 'Deal/No deal/No', pick one vote? Why are you subdividing the "Yes" option, then? Why not subdivide the "No" option, too? Is it going to be a two question vote, with 'Yes/No', and 'If Yes wins, Deal' and 'If Yes wins, no Deal'? I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that you are not going to like the outcome of that one, either.
- Macuyiko 7y ago
  One thing I have trouble with understanding that in a normal democratic system all of us (I hope) reasonably expect that democracy and elections are a continuous process, a repeated game (I'd say without this repetition, we're not really talking about a democracy any more). I might vote for a certain party now hoping that they implement what they promise, or at least a substantial part of it that satisfies me as a voter. They might also not, however. Sometimes voters get disappointed, change their ideas, viewpoints, or their personal life simply changes. No matter, the populace as a whole gets a chance to vote in new people and parties next time around. It's exactly this willingness to change one's viewpoint or political orientation which embodies the responsibility voters carry to maintain this democratic process. Why is this referendum that fundamentally different? A lot of things have changed, a lot of issues have occurred. I also don't see why subdividing the options would be that harmful. Otherwise, following your reasoning, a two-party system would also be the best system in any democratic country (either this person, or that other fellow).
  - vkou 7y ago
    The reason repeating referendum questions rubs people the wrong way is because you're changing the rules under them. In a democracy, we know that an election will take place every 4 years/5 years/whenever the government fails a vote of confidence. Those are the rules, we vote for people with that expectation. (I also believe that representative democracy is rubbish, but that's neither here nor there.) In a referendum, you are asked a question. Should Brexit happen, or not. Not 'Should Brexit happen, oh, and if we don't like the outcome, should we have another referendum?' I supposed that technically, nothing about posing a referendum question precludes another referendum from taking place, before the first referendum is enacted into law. But can you imagine if, when we had an election, if the government didn't like the result, they'd just delay transitioning power to the winners, and would instead host another election? And another one? And another one, until they win? It's also not clear that in the past three years, a single person living on the British Isles has changed their opinion on the matter of whether or not Brexit should actually happen.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ygmelnikova 7y ago
Hogwash? I sure the Confederates States considered the 13th amendment to be 'hogwash' as well. One doesn't get to simply disannul a legally binding election result due to disagreement, or one's ignorance of the 'interest rate'. That's how civil wars get started. Besides, what kind of fool purchases a car without knowing the financing details?
draw_down 7y ago
It makes me think of Prohibition, in the US. We voted for it, then a while later we voted against it because we realized it was a bad idea. Nothing wrong with that. Having a second vote as a "wait, should we really do this?" seems fine to me.
033803throwaway 7y ago
If that is the case, would it not be simpler, If the government simply dissolved the people And elected another?
hanoz 7y ago
It's not democracy if you repeat the process until you get the right answer then stop. And the EU has plenty of previous on this. And you can argue that the facts on the ground have changed, but the powers offering the referendum are the ones changing the facts.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  The referendum just gone is the second referendum though. The first one on staying part of the European community and common market was in 1975.
- purple_ducks 7y ago
  > And the EU has plenty of previous on this. The EU didn't have anything to do with the calling of referendum. The voices calling for a 2nd vote are inside the UK. >the facts on the ground have changed, The facts haven't changed, they've just been established for the first time - big difference.
- belltaco 7y ago
  1.4M new voters would be newly eligible to vote. Why should they be disenfranchised for a long time when they have to face the consequences for much of their lifetime, unlikely the very old? Not to mention that there is no Brexit in heaven or hell, so the votes of the deceased shouldn't haunt people from their graves. >And you can argue that the facts on the ground have changed, but the powers offering the referendum are the ones changing the facts You mean like the 350 million pounds a year for NHS lie? Or the complete failure of the Brexiteers to offer a decent solution to the Irish border mess? How are those remainer's fault again? What about the fact that the courts have found that the Brexit campaign violated campaign laws, and the reason a new referendum won't be forced is that the vote was non-binding? Sounds like Brexiteers are actually afraid of democracy.
  - fetbaffe 7y ago
    > 1.4M new voters would be newly eligible to vote. That is an argument you can make for every election.
lolcat5e 7y ago
A second referendum would not solve anything. The original referendum should not have been called by PM Cameron. The core issue is one of national English identity. Scotland has its own Scottish nationalist party. Wales has its own nationalist party. Northern Ireland has two nationalist parties for good measure. But English nationalists have had to take cover in the 'broad church' of the Conservative and Unionist Party, to give it its full title. The trouble is that the English nationalists have always chafed under what they see as the heavy yoke of EU regulations. The 'one nation Tories' / Unionists consider keeping the UK together as an important ideal. The two factions have been fighting within the party for decades. It has now come to a head. PM Johnson is going for a break with the EU 'do or die'. Scotland and NI did not have a majority for leaving however. It's a mess. It should not have happened. The UK is not Switzerland, it is a representative democracy, where Parliament is sovereign. As an unintended consequence the UK could break up in the coming years.
- belltaco 7y ago
  Any referendum that changes status quo in such a significant manner should need 2/3rds majority or atleast 60%.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  Europe has long been the Conservative Party's kryptonite. I am almost surprised it took this long for the referendum to break them up, but you now have Ken Clarke kicked out of the Conservative party, along with people like Nicolas Soames, Churchill's grandson. Ken Clarke has also been making statements that he would be willing to back Corbyn in a unity government. We are in very strange political waters right now. But one thing that seems clear is that the Conservative and Unionist Party seems to be in rather deep existential trouble. https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-soames/churchills-grandson-to-be-expelled-from-conservative-party-after-defying-johnson-idUKKCN1VO2AV https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-soames/churchil... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/03/rebel-leader-philip-hammond-tells-boris-johnson-will-face-fight/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/03/rebel-leader... https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/ken-clarke-says-he-would-vote-for-jeremy-corbyn-unity-government-to-stop-boris-johnsons-ukip-rebranded/30/08/ https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/ken-clarke-says-h...
defertoreptar 7y ago
Yeah when you frame it that way, it's one thing. However, what if two people agree to buy the car given all the available information. Then, one person changes their mind and the other doesn't? Person A keeps saying, "well, let's decide later" and keeps kicking the can down the road. Is that fair to person B, who originally had an agreement and never not wanted the car?
- mumblemumble 7y ago
  But here you're taking the analogy to making a financial decision within a domestic partnership and stretching it well past the breaking point. Let's keep people A and B, but also add people C through CZZZZZ. And now we no longer need to frame it as an intractable argument between two people; we can recast it as an opportunity to re-survey all these people's opinion in order to see how everyone's opinion has changed in light of the new information that's been presented.
- jaredklewis 7y ago
  Not sure what relevance your metaphor has on Brexit since the voting public did not have "all the available information." Because no one could have possibly known what the terms of Brexit would be, because they would have to be negotiated. Which was the problem with the referendum. As in the example comment above it was like asking "Do you want lower taxes?" Well that kind of depends on a lot of stuff. Are the lower taxes coming from budget cuts (if so, from what), debt increase, or what?
  - defertoreptar 7y ago
    > since the voting public did not have "all the available information." What information then was available but the public didn't know? > Because no one could have possibly known what the terms of Brexit would be, because they would have to be negotiated. So then it's fair to say that information was not available.
flukus 7y ago
Your analogy also explains why Britain shouldn't be in the EU in the first place. People voted to join the EEC and then later on the terms of the agreement were changed as it morphed into the EU. There has never been an explicit democratic mandate to cede sovereignty to the united states of Europe. The current clusterfuck is a result of that.

busterarm 7y ago

> On the contrary, I would be quite peeved if my partner went ahead and signed a 20% loan for a car without soliciting further discussion, and defended that decision by saying, "We already talked about this, and 20% is all the dealer was willing to offer." Losing an election does not equate to not having a say.

eloff 7y ago
Having a say before understanding the deal on offer is another matter though.
- busterarm 7y ago
  That's the thing about any change in governance though...you fundamentally cannot know what will come out the other side. Nobody wages war or starts a revolution knowing what the outcome will be either. That's the nature of change. We're fortunate enough to live in a world where we can vote for change instead of kill for it.
  - jibal 7y ago
    "you fundamentally cannot know what will come out the other side" This is a baseless and false claim. "Nobody wages war or starts a revolution knowing what the outcome will be either" Even if true, this isn't relevant ... it cherry picks extremely chaotic changes to shore up a completely invalid argument. "That's the nature of change." No, it isn't ... well understood, predictable changes are executed all the time. "We're fortunate enough to live in a world where we can vote for change instead of kill for it." Not relevant.
    - busterarm 7y ago
      >>"you fundamentally cannot know what will come out the other side" > This is a baseless and false claim. Last I checked it's impossible to predict the future. Please educate me otherwise, because we'll make a fortune in the bond markets.
      - jibal 7y ago
        google "science"
  - eloff 7y ago
    None of that means I can't have a second say after two years and a better understanding of the repercussions. In HN speak I need to evaluate my trajectory and either pivot our stay the course. Just not allowing myself that freedom is just bad policy film a personal, business, or political perspective. People can and sometimes should have a chance to change their minds.
    - busterarm 7y ago
      A political system has to survive the reality that some voters are stupid. Which voters are stupid is surely a point of contention, but in the climate where everyone is convinced of their righteousness, everyone thinks someone is stupid. You cannot helicopter parent your voting populace. Otherwise votes just don't matter. If you feel that way, don't give people the right to vote in the first place. Your political system has to provide an environment where the government (as in the will of the people) can safely fail at doing something important. IMO, regardless of what is correct, a handful of insane politicians in the UK played a stupid game thinking they could avert a minor crisis and instead created a catastrophe. Those responsible should be pilloried and everyone should learn a great lesson from this. That said, I think that if the UK wants to remain intact, it is forced to take it on the chin and follow through with this. Afterwards, the country can unite and pick up the pieces and fix it. The EU should also realize the opportunity it has here and be lenient. The problem is that France and Germany can't stand the threat to their Union and will throw their weight around like the bullies they are. The Scandinavians will be convinced as always that they're just better than everyone else and let the UK suffer. The smaller EU countries simultaneously don't give a shit and also await the conclusion of this so they can see which way the wind blows. I think if it goes up for referendum again, we'll actually see only 60% of the voter turnout of the last one. Could still go either way. In either case, the UK won't survive it. The only way forward is through.
      - somebadguy 7y ago
        You are an ignorant cunt. Jog on loser
      - eloff 7y ago
- pessimizer 7y ago
  People don't understand any more about the deal (or lack of one) than they did before they voted. They've just been subjected to endless Y2K-scale hype for an extended period of time.
  - eloff 7y ago
    That's wrong and also an unnecessarily patronizing view of the intelligence of the people of the UK. People are smarter and have a better ability to learn complex topics than they get credit for. It's more a problem of garbage in garbage out.
  - purple_ducks 7y ago
    > People don't understand any more about the deal (or lack of one) than they did before they voted. They now know the realities of a no-deal and the implications it will have. That's a lot more than they knew before the vote.
  - IanCal 7y ago
    Since the deal did not exist before the original vote, it would be hard for people to understand less about it now.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
Winning an advisory referendum with a 52% majority, doesn't always equate to parliament having to take the advice. edit - people can disagree with me all they like, however I am not just making this up, so disagreeing with me will not make this go away. Here is the 'Referendums in the United Kingdom - Constitution Committee', from the UK House of Lords; '223. We recognise that because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of public opinion.' https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldco... I suppose you could try to argue that 52% is 'decisive'.
jibal 7y ago
Non sequitur that has nothing to do with what's being discussed. Notably, a new referundum is about letting those who voted for the winner getting a greater say.

gambiting 7y ago

Exactly. The example I like to give is: imagine if the government held a referendum asking "do you want to pay less taxes, yes or no?". Yes wins(who wouldn't want to pay less taxes, right?), And then 3 years later the government says "ok, we'll slash taxes by 90% but we'll close the NHS and all public schools. You can go to the public sector for either, so it's all good. And remember, you voted yes, so holding another referendum to see if that's definitely what you want would be undemocratic now!".

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
vidanay 7y ago
You just made millions of stupid, ignorant Americans excited for the possibility.

nailer 7y ago

> find out later that we can only get financing at 20% Is that because someone decided you had to accept any deal the car salesman made? Perhaps you should have had the option of walking away.

fao_ 7y ago
But in this example, 'not having a car' means that we can't get to our job on time, so we lose income. Likewise, 'not being in the EU' means spending millions, possibly billions of pounds on lawyers to renegotiate deals (that we already have). We've already had to borrow lawyers from the EU because we do not have the legal manpower to enact Brexit! The worst thing about this is that the position the UK will be in, means that it does not have a good standpoint for bargaining. If the US loses trade deals with the UK, that's not terrible because the US still has trade deals with hundreds of other countries. If the UK loses trade deals with the US, that's catastrophic and puts us in a worse position for every other trade deal after that. The entire reason why Asia sees Brexit as "an oppotunity"[1][2] is because Britain will be on the back foot for all trade deals, they can negotiate harder and we are in a compromising position. [1]: https://asiahouse.org/india-sees-brexit-opportunity-indian-high-commissioner-yk-sinha/ https://asiahouse.org/india-sees-brexit-opportunity-indian-h... [2]: https://www.worldfinance.com/home/asia-finds-post-brexit-opportunities https://www.worldfinance.com/home/asia-finds-post-brexit-opp...
- nailer 7y ago
  And the salesperson loses income. Which is a pity as you buy cars pretty regularly. It's almost like, I don't know, a bilateral trade agreement. The UK is using lawyers from Europe, not from the EU, which is a political body. It's a very important distinction: the UK is withdrawing from a body where unelected people write laws, not making a xenophobic statement, despite people's attempts to frame it that way.
  - fao_ 7y ago
    > the UK is withdrawing from a body where unelected people write laws They are elected. "A Member of the European Parliament (MEP) is a person who has been elected to serve as a popular representative in the European Parliament" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_European_Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_European_Parl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_of_the_European_Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_of_the_European_Parliam... http://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/be-heard/elections http://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/be-heard/el... > not making a xenophobic statement, despite people's attempts to frame it that way. Please explain why you think Joe Cox was murdered. Please explain why you think so many UKIP members are outed racists[0][1][2][3][4] (Notably, even Farage left UKIP because of the extremism). Please explain what you think the British National Front stands for. 0: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/01/henry-bolton-s-girlfriend-didn-t-bring-down-ukip-party-s-racism-problem-did https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/01/henry-bolto... 1: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/26/ukip-anti-muslim-bigotry-racist-europhobic-tories https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/26/ukip-a... 2: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/henry-bolton-ukip-racism-girlfriend-new-leader-jo-marney-a8172056.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/henry-bolton-ukip-racis... 3: https://www.itv.com/news/2018-12-04/former-ukip-leader-nigel-farage-quits-party/ https://www.itv.com/news/2018-12-04/former-ukip-leader-nigel... 4: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ukip-choking-racism-its-wonderful-13681022 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ukip-choking-racism-i...

vkou 7y ago

What will the point of a 2nd referendum be? Is it going to be another yes/no vote? If so, why not have a third, fourth, and fifth referendum, until you get the result you want? Is it going to be a 'Deal/No deal/No', pick one vote? Why are you subdividing the "Yes" option, then? Why not subdivide the "No" option, too? Is it going to be a two question vote, with 'Yes/No', and 'If Yes wins, Deal' and 'If Yes wins, no Deal'? I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that you are not going to like the outcome of that one, either.

Macuyiko 7y ago
One thing I have trouble with understanding that in a normal democratic system all of us (I hope) reasonably expect that democracy and elections are a continuous process, a repeated game (I'd say without this repetition, we're not really talking about a democracy any more). I might vote for a certain party now hoping that they implement what they promise, or at least a substantial part of it that satisfies me as a voter. They might also not, however. Sometimes voters get disappointed, change their ideas, viewpoints, or their personal life simply changes. No matter, the populace as a whole gets a chance to vote in new people and parties next time around. It's exactly this willingness to change one's viewpoint or political orientation which embodies the responsibility voters carry to maintain this democratic process. Why is this referendum that fundamentally different? A lot of things have changed, a lot of issues have occurred. I also don't see why subdividing the options would be that harmful. Otherwise, following your reasoning, a two-party system would also be the best system in any democratic country (either this person, or that other fellow).
- vkou 7y ago
  The reason repeating referendum questions rubs people the wrong way is because you're changing the rules under them. In a democracy, we know that an election will take place every 4 years/5 years/whenever the government fails a vote of confidence. Those are the rules, we vote for people with that expectation. (I also believe that representative democracy is rubbish, but that's neither here nor there.) In a referendum, you are asked a question. Should Brexit happen, or not. Not 'Should Brexit happen, oh, and if we don't like the outcome, should we have another referendum?' I supposed that technically, nothing about posing a referendum question precludes another referendum from taking place, before the first referendum is enacted into law. But can you imagine if, when we had an election, if the government didn't like the result, they'd just delay transitioning power to the winners, and would instead host another election? And another one? And another one, until they win? It's also not clear that in the past three years, a single person living on the British Isles has changed their opinion on the matter of whether or not Brexit should actually happen.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ygmelnikova 7y ago

Hogwash? I sure the Confederates States considered the 13th amendment to be 'hogwash' as well. One doesn't get to simply disannul a legally binding election result due to disagreement, or one's ignorance of the 'interest rate'. That's how civil wars get started. Besides, what kind of fool purchases a car without knowing the financing details?

draw_down 7y ago

It makes me think of Prohibition, in the US. We voted for it, then a while later we voted against it because we realized it was a bad idea. Nothing wrong with that. Having a second vote as a "wait, should we really do this?" seems fine to me.

033803throwaway 7y ago

If that is the case, would it not be simpler, If the government simply dissolved the people And elected another?

hanoz 7y ago

It's not democracy if you repeat the process until you get the right answer then stop. And the EU has plenty of previous on this. And you can argue that the facts on the ground have changed, but the powers offering the referendum are the ones changing the facts.

inflatableDodo 7y ago
The referendum just gone is the second referendum though. The first one on staying part of the European community and common market was in 1975.
purple_ducks 7y ago
> And the EU has plenty of previous on this. The EU didn't have anything to do with the calling of referendum. The voices calling for a 2nd vote are inside the UK. >the facts on the ground have changed, The facts haven't changed, they've just been established for the first time - big difference.
belltaco 7y ago
1.4M new voters would be newly eligible to vote. Why should they be disenfranchised for a long time when they have to face the consequences for much of their lifetime, unlikely the very old? Not to mention that there is no Brexit in heaven or hell, so the votes of the deceased shouldn't haunt people from their graves. >And you can argue that the facts on the ground have changed, but the powers offering the referendum are the ones changing the facts You mean like the 350 million pounds a year for NHS lie? Or the complete failure of the Brexiteers to offer a decent solution to the Irish border mess? How are those remainer's fault again? What about the fact that the courts have found that the Brexit campaign violated campaign laws, and the reason a new referendum won't be forced is that the vote was non-binding? Sounds like Brexiteers are actually afraid of democracy.
- fetbaffe 7y ago
  > 1.4M new voters would be newly eligible to vote. That is an argument you can make for every election.

lolcat5e 7y ago

A second referendum would not solve anything. The original referendum should not have been called by PM Cameron. The core issue is one of national English identity. Scotland has its own Scottish nationalist party. Wales has its own nationalist party. Northern Ireland has two nationalist parties for good measure. But English nationalists have had to take cover in the 'broad church' of the Conservative and Unionist Party, to give it its full title. The trouble is that the English nationalists have always chafed under what they see as the heavy yoke of EU regulations. The 'one nation Tories' / Unionists consider keeping the UK together as an important ideal. The two factions have been fighting within the party for decades. It has now come to a head. PM Johnson is going for a break with the EU 'do or die'. Scotland and NI did not have a majority for leaving however. It's a mess. It should not have happened. The UK is not Switzerland, it is a representative democracy, where Parliament is sovereign. As an unintended consequence the UK could break up in the coming years.

belltaco 7y ago
Any referendum that changes status quo in such a significant manner should need 2/3rds majority or atleast 60%.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
Europe has long been the Conservative Party's kryptonite. I am almost surprised it took this long for the referendum to break them up, but you now have Ken Clarke kicked out of the Conservative party, along with people like Nicolas Soames, Churchill's grandson. Ken Clarke has also been making statements that he would be willing to back Corbyn in a unity government. We are in very strange political waters right now. But one thing that seems clear is that the Conservative and Unionist Party seems to be in rather deep existential trouble. https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-soames/churchills-grandson-to-be-expelled-from-conservative-party-after-defying-johnson-idUKKCN1VO2AV https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-soames/churchil... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/03/rebel-leader-philip-hammond-tells-boris-johnson-will-face-fight/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/03/rebel-leader... https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/ken-clarke-says-he-would-vote-for-jeremy-corbyn-unity-government-to-stop-boris-johnsons-ukip-rebranded/30/08/ https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/ken-clarke-says-h...

defertoreptar 7y ago

Yeah when you frame it that way, it's one thing. However, what if two people agree to buy the car given all the available information. Then, one person changes their mind and the other doesn't? Person A keeps saying, "well, let's decide later" and keeps kicking the can down the road. Is that fair to person B, who originally had an agreement and never not wanted the car?

mumblemumble 7y ago
But here you're taking the analogy to making a financial decision within a domestic partnership and stretching it well past the breaking point. Let's keep people A and B, but also add people C through CZZZZZ. And now we no longer need to frame it as an intractable argument between two people; we can recast it as an opportunity to re-survey all these people's opinion in order to see how everyone's opinion has changed in light of the new information that's been presented.
jaredklewis 7y ago
Not sure what relevance your metaphor has on Brexit since the voting public did not have "all the available information." Because no one could have possibly known what the terms of Brexit would be, because they would have to be negotiated. Which was the problem with the referendum. As in the example comment above it was like asking "Do you want lower taxes?" Well that kind of depends on a lot of stuff. Are the lower taxes coming from budget cuts (if so, from what), debt increase, or what?
- defertoreptar 7y ago
  > since the voting public did not have "all the available information." What information then was available but the public didn't know? > Because no one could have possibly known what the terms of Brexit would be, because they would have to be negotiated. So then it's fair to say that information was not available.

flukus 7y ago

Your analogy also explains why Britain shouldn't be in the EU in the first place. People voted to join the EEC and then later on the terms of the agreement were changed as it morphed into the EU. There has never been an explicit democratic mandate to cede sovereignty to the united states of Europe. The current clusterfuck is a result of that.