4 ms·

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 fa

by 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.
  - dagw 7y ago
    That is an argument you can make for every election. And that is why we hold new elections every few years, instead of just sticking with the people we picked last time.
jaredklewis 7y ago
Well can't we argue that the referendum was a flawed idea to begin with? As commented above, it's like asking the voting public "Do you want lower taxes, yes or no?" That depends on an awful lot! How much lower? How is the decrease in revenue going to be handled? Will there be cuts? If so to what? Will there be a debt increase? Etc... Do we want political decisions of this level of importance and complexity to be made through a process of vague referendums? Seems like madness to me.
IanCal 7y ago
Holding a vote on a specific course of action when all other methods of deciding have failed is not "repeating until you get the right answer". It's not like the result had been ignored, it's dominated the political world for years now. There was a vote, we've spent the last 3 years dealing with it and the result (the deal) was roundly rejected. "Ok, what now?" Is not an unreasonable question to ask people.
somebadguy 7y ago
Grow up

by hanoz 7y ago

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.
- dagw 7y ago
  That is an argument you can make for every election. And that is why we hold new elections every few years, instead of just sticking with the people we picked last time.

jaredklewis 7y ago

Well can't we argue that the referendum was a flawed idea to begin with? As commented above, it's like asking the voting public "Do you want lower taxes, yes or no?" That depends on an awful lot! How much lower? How is the decrease in revenue going to be handled? Will there be cuts? If so to what? Will there be a debt increase? Etc... Do we want political decisions of this level of importance and complexity to be made through a process of vague referendums? Seems like madness to me.

IanCal 7y ago

Holding a vote on a specific course of action when all other methods of deciding have failed is not "repeating until you get the right answer". It's not like the result had been ignored, it's dominated the political world for years now. There was a vote, we've spent the last 3 years dealing with it and the result (the deal) was roundly rejected. "Ok, what now?" Is not an unreasonable question to ask people.

somebadguy 7y ago

Grow up