3 ms·

Why would you vote in an explicitly non-binding “advisory” referendum and think that this somehow mandated the government to act? Particularly when the win marg

Why would you vote in an explicitly non-binding “advisory” referendum and think that this somehow mandated the government to act? Particularly when the win margin was a couple of percent.

mellosouls 7y ago
Whatever the technical niceties of "advisory" there was never any dispute that the referendum would decide the future of Britain within the EU. The whole "advisory", "win margin" etc. phrasing is post-vote weasel words by the losing side (mine). Those are nullification criteria to be established before the vote, not after it doesn't go your way. If Remain had won by a similar small margin, do you think we would have been using those words to acknowledge some moral failure of our victory? Personally, I doubt it.
- matthewdgreen 7y ago
  It seems weird to initiate something as radical as a total political realignment of your country on the basis of a 2% win margin, particularly when you don't actually have a concrete plan for how you're doing it (and when no majority of the pro-Brexit voters seem to support the actual plans that have been proposed.) The total failure of your politicians to complete this project after several free and democratic parliamentary elections seems to me to be a reflection of that fact, rather than some kind of weasel. >If Remain had won by a similar small margin, do you think we would have been using those words to acknowledge some moral failure of our victory? Not really -- preserving your existing trade relationships doesn't seem like the kind of thing that requires an overwhelming majority.
  - mellosouls 7y ago
    I'm not sure how to respond without repeating myself. Those are nullification criteria to be established before the vote, not after it doesn't go your way. The decision was made, it just needs to be delivered. I agree it has taken far too long to do so.
    - matthewdgreen 7y ago
      Nobody established any nullification criteria. They just said “do you want to leave the EU”. Parliament then negotiated an exit deal. The problem seems to be that the many of the same voters who said “yes” are unable to get their representatives to agree on accepting that deal.
rtempaccount1 7y ago
It didn't, and 3 years ago that point was (in my opinion) at least partially understood. However since then it has been treated as an article of the faith by both the major political parties in the United Kingdom that "brexit means brexit" (and a wide variety of other fairly meaningless slogans) Now, reversing course would be seen by a large percentage of the population as a betrayal and would quite likely lead to a hard right victory in the next general election (although the vagaries of FPTP could make outcome rather random) Looking at things like the "britain elects" twitter account which follows various polls, you can see the effect of various outcomes on likely voting https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1176103416990437377?s=20 https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1176103416990437377... compared to https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1176087917149728768?s=20 https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1176087917149728768... for example.
mytailorisrich 7y ago
There's the law, the referendum was not binding, and there's politics. It is politically untenable to hold a referendum then to ignore the result.
- matthewdgreen 7y ago
  And yet multiple elections later you seem unable to deliver the results. Is this because your parliamentary elections are less democratic than your referendum?
  - mellosouls 7y ago
    No, it is because there is a tension between them and enough people acting in poor faith on each side to enable that tension to undermine the people's decision. The results should be delivered.
    - matthewdgreen 7y ago
      Who exactly is supposed to deliver them, and what are the results? You keep electing parliaments that negotiate specific deals and then loudly, angrily denounce those same deals. (And I'm not just talking about the Remainers. I'm talking about the ostensibly pro-Brexit party.)

Why would you vote in an explicitly non-binding “advisory” referendum and think that this somehow mandated the government to act? Particularly when the win margin was a couple of percent.

mellosouls 7y ago

Whatever the technical niceties of "advisory" there was never any dispute that the referendum would decide the future of Britain within the EU. The whole "advisory", "win margin" etc. phrasing is post-vote weasel words by the losing side (mine). Those are nullification criteria to be established before the vote, not after it doesn't go your way. If Remain had won by a similar small margin, do you think we would have been using those words to acknowledge some moral failure of our victory? Personally, I doubt it.

matthewdgreen 7y ago
It seems weird to initiate something as radical as a total political realignment of your country on the basis of a 2% win margin, particularly when you don't actually have a concrete plan for how you're doing it (and when no majority of the pro-Brexit voters seem to support the actual plans that have been proposed.) The total failure of your politicians to complete this project after several free and democratic parliamentary elections seems to me to be a reflection of that fact, rather than some kind of weasel. >If Remain had won by a similar small margin, do you think we would have been using those words to acknowledge some moral failure of our victory? Not really -- preserving your existing trade relationships doesn't seem like the kind of thing that requires an overwhelming majority.
- mellosouls 7y ago
  I'm not sure how to respond without repeating myself. Those are nullification criteria to be established before the vote, not after it doesn't go your way. The decision was made, it just needs to be delivered. I agree it has taken far too long to do so.
  - matthewdgreen 7y ago
    Nobody established any nullification criteria. They just said “do you want to leave the EU”. Parliament then negotiated an exit deal. The problem seems to be that the many of the same voters who said “yes” are unable to get their representatives to agree on accepting that deal.

rtempaccount1 7y ago

It didn't, and 3 years ago that point was (in my opinion) at least partially understood. However since then it has been treated as an article of the faith by both the major political parties in the United Kingdom that "brexit means brexit" (and a wide variety of other fairly meaningless slogans) Now, reversing course would be seen by a large percentage of the population as a betrayal and would quite likely lead to a hard right victory in the next general election (although the vagaries of FPTP could make outcome rather random) Looking at things like the "britain elects" twitter account which follows various polls, you can see the effect of various outcomes on likely voting https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1176103416990437377?s=20 https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1176103416990437377... compared to https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1176087917149728768?s=20 https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1176087917149728768... for example.

mytailorisrich 7y ago

There's the law, the referendum was not binding, and there's politics. It is politically untenable to hold a referendum then to ignore the result.

matthewdgreen 7y ago
And yet multiple elections later you seem unable to deliver the results. Is this because your parliamentary elections are less democratic than your referendum?
- mellosouls 7y ago
  No, it is because there is a tension between them and enough people acting in poor faith on each side to enable that tension to undermine the people's decision. The results should be delivered.
  - matthewdgreen 7y ago
    Who exactly is supposed to deliver them, and what are the results? You keep electing parliaments that negotiate specific deals and then loudly, angrily denounce those same deals. (And I'm not just talking about the Remainers. I'm talking about the ostensibly pro-Brexit party.)