3 ms·

> The poll you cite indicates a 4 to 6% support for cancelling Brexit. It seems... unlikely... that 90% of Remain voters have now switched over to Leave. Why n

> The poll you cite indicates a 4 to 6% support for cancelling Brexit. It seems... unlikely... that 90% of Remain voters have now switched over to Leave. Why not? Losers consent is a part of democracy and life. However I will admit I cited a poor source, it was not my intention to be deceptive. The thing is, the will of the people is what the referendum said at the time, nothing else. If it's changed, so be it, but the first result must be implemented first. > If there was another referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, how would you vote? The question is also extremely suspect. It's not asking what the current opinion is, it's saying if we do it all again. These are different. It'd be great if all votes could be done with the benefit of hindsight, but to my knowledge nobody has invented a time machine yet.

ceejayoz 7y ago
> Losers consent is a part of democracy and life. Oh, come on. When Labour wins an election the entire Tory party doesn't switch over to their side of things. Arguing that Remain has dropped to 4-6% of the populace is not reasonable. > The thing is, the will of the people is what the referendum said at the time, nothing else. What law established this? This is particularly disingenuous given the explicitly non-binding nature of the first referendum. You were perfectly happy to cite current opinion polls when you thought they supported your will of the people argument. > It'd be great if all votes could be done with the benefit of hindsight, but to my knowledge nobody has invented a time machine yet. A second referendum can absolutely be done with hindsight. "Gee, that didn't go well."
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  > When Labour wins an election the entire Tory party doesn't switch over to their side of things. Losers consent in the case you mentioned is that Labour accept the Tory government as legitimate. The difference is a referendum is supposed to be final (and it was indeed sold as so), but with an election the opposition will get elected again someday. The proper thing for Labour to do right now is push for the best deal they can to minimise what they believe is a bad decision. It should not be to try as hard as possible to do anything but Brexit. > What law established this? This is particularly disingenuous given the explicitly non-binding nature of the first referendum. No law established this, but given our unwritten constitution, can we really be certain that it's legal to ignore a referendum without court scrutiny (which has a divided opinion here btw)? The ballet paper literally said "The government will implement your decision" - I think it's fair to say if it has all the features/promises/legitimacy of a vote, it's a vote. > You were perfectly happy to cite current opinion polls when you thought they supported your will of the people argument. I was responding to your argument that a referendum is basically a poll (which I disagreed with anyway). > A second referendum can absolutely be done with hindsight. "Gee, that didn't go well." I'm not a fan of second referendum. I'm asking you honestly here, if it was remain won by 4%, and leavers were complaining for 3 years, would you call it legitimate to have another referendum so soon? Of course not, they'd be accused of being undemocratic and I believe they're right.
croon 7y ago
> The thing is, the will of the people is what the referendum said at the time, nothing else. If it's changed, so be it, but the first result must be implemented first. Regardless of your intent, this specifically argues that we should implement a decision made by people who since have more information and have changed their minds. That is emphatically not a good position. This is why we generally (mildly facetious) are governed by learned adults, and not children frozen in time. The ability to change opinions is what helps us and society to evolve.

ceejayoz 7y ago

> Losers consent is a part of democracy and life. Oh, come on. When Labour wins an election the entire Tory party doesn't switch over to their side of things. Arguing that Remain has dropped to 4-6% of the populace is not reasonable. > The thing is, the will of the people is what the referendum said at the time, nothing else. What law established this? This is particularly disingenuous given the explicitly non-binding nature of the first referendum. You were perfectly happy to cite current opinion polls when you thought they supported your will of the people argument. > It'd be great if all votes could be done with the benefit of hindsight, but to my knowledge nobody has invented a time machine yet. A second referendum can absolutely be done with hindsight. "Gee, that didn't go well."

cameronbrown 7y ago
> When Labour wins an election the entire Tory party doesn't switch over to their side of things. Losers consent in the case you mentioned is that Labour accept the Tory government as legitimate. The difference is a referendum is supposed to be final (and it was indeed sold as so), but with an election the opposition will get elected again someday. The proper thing for Labour to do right now is push for the best deal they can to minimise what they believe is a bad decision. It should not be to try as hard as possible to do anything but Brexit. > What law established this? This is particularly disingenuous given the explicitly non-binding nature of the first referendum. No law established this, but given our unwritten constitution, can we really be certain that it's legal to ignore a referendum without court scrutiny (which has a divided opinion here btw)? The ballet paper literally said "The government will implement your decision" - I think it's fair to say if it has all the features/promises/legitimacy of a vote, it's a vote. > You were perfectly happy to cite current opinion polls when you thought they supported your will of the people argument. I was responding to your argument that a referendum is basically a poll (which I disagreed with anyway). > A second referendum can absolutely be done with hindsight. "Gee, that didn't go well." I'm not a fan of second referendum. I'm asking you honestly here, if it was remain won by 4%, and leavers were complaining for 3 years, would you call it legitimate to have another referendum so soon? Of course not, they'd be accused of being undemocratic and I believe they're right.

croon 7y ago

> The thing is, the will of the people is what the referendum said at the time, nothing else. If it's changed, so be it, but the first result must be implemented first. Regardless of your intent, this specifically argues that we should implement a decision made by people who since have more information and have changed their minds. That is emphatically not a good position. This is why we generally (mildly facetious) are governed by learned adults, and not children frozen in time. The ability to change opinions is what helps us and society to evolve.