5 ms·

That's silly. I have no dog in this fight, but people are allowed to change their opinion, especially as circumstances change. If what your choice was based on

That's silly. I have no dog in this fight, but people are allowed to change their opinion, especially as circumstances change. If what your choice was based on changed, then it's perfectly logical for your choice to change in response. Holding up to "once in a generation" promises is stupid, though so was making such a claim to start with.

brigandish 4y ago
> people are allowed to change their opinion Since I've changed mine I think that is called teaching granny to suck eggs. > If what your choice was based on changed, then it's perfectly logical for your choice to change in response. I was told it was a once in a generation vote - has that changed? What constitutes a big enough change to bring a new vote? How often should these type of referenda be held? > Holding up to "once in a generation" promises is stupid, though so was making such a claim to start with. Yes, you must forgive me for thinking that principles and promises are worth sticking to. I should be as cynical as politicians and simply go by what is convenient, right?
- maweki 4y ago
  Why is holding the pro-independence people to "once in a generation" okay but not holding the contra-independence people to "this is the only way to stay in the EU"? The issue was a vote on staying in the EU as much as staying in the UK. Now these circumstances changed. Also, the promises of further devolution weren't kept either. Again, why are you so hung up on the (let's say) lie of "once in a generation" but not hung up on all the other lies told by the opposition?
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > The issue was a vote on staying in the EU as much as staying in the UK I don't even remember it coming up but if it means a lot to you then I can see you'd be aggravated, but how would it obviate the once in a generation pledge? Scotland can't join the EU if it goes independent anyway, the vote to remain really was the only practical way to stay in the EU.
    - maweki 4y ago
      > Scotland can't join the EU if it goes independent anyway Why though? It's not like the UK could dangle a veto over their heads now. Spain already pledged not to veto.
    - synu 4y ago
      The pledge you’re referring to is something every voter signed during the vote? Or something a politician had said? Also curious why Scotland is not able to apply if it leaves the UK? Thanks in advance for the info.
      - smcl 4y ago
        > Also curious why Scotland is not able to apply if it leaves the UK? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-scotland-eu-independent-donald-tusk-dominic-raab-indyref2-a9313336.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-scotla... They're talking nonsense. There is sometimes talk of Spain veto-ing Scottish accession to the EU as a sort of warning to Catalonians (who closely identify with the Scottish indy movement), but realistically Scotland is aligned with the EU acquis so there's no really go reason not to. They won't be able to rejoin on the same terms as the UK were in, but that's something that was lost forever after Brexit.
- cygx 4y ago
  What constitutes a big enough change to bring a new vote? Leaving the EU?
  - brigandish 4y ago
    As Scotland doesn't qualify to join the EU upon independence I'd have to say it's not. What else would be big enough?
    - cygx 4y ago
      Scotland doesn't qualify to join the EU upon independence What would be the problem, assuming the independence gets recognized by London? The border situation? The deficit? Or is there some more fundamental problem I'm unaware of?
      - brigandish 4y ago
        You've mentioned two important factors but the harder standards to be met are economic. This[1] covers it quite thoroughly, is written by someone I would expect is in favour of joining the EU (though I'm not sure) but I think they've done a fair job, and some (some) of the comments too. Once those are met then thorny issues like a hundred mile long border can be looked at. I don't think it's impossible, but, as is covered in the first link (and many other places, did you look?) Scotland cannot swan in to the EU in less than 2 years even at the very best. And without the Euro?[2] [1] https://sceptical.scot/2020/03/can-scotland-meet-eu-economic-criteria/ https://sceptical.scot/2020/03/can-scotland-meet-eu-economic... [2] https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-independent-scotland-would-have-to-adopt-euro-after-joining-eu https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-independen...
- dale_glass 4y ago
  > I was told it was a once in a generation vote - has that changed? What constitutes a big enough change to bring a new vote? How often should these type of referenda be held? I don't think there's any fixed answer to such a question. But I'd say that if the population in general clearly changes their answer, then that merits putting that change in practice. > Yes, you must forgive me for thinking that principles and promises are worth sticking to. I should be as cynical as politicians and simply go by what is convenient, right? Yup. I'm a consequentialist. I care extremely little about iron-clad principles, and instead think that the thing we should be optimizing for is outcomes. There's no reason to live under the wrong outcome for the sake of some sort of idealism that brings no benefit to anyone. Rules can be changed as necessary, and promises can be reneged on (though IMO such promises shouldn't be made in the first place).
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > I care extremely little about iron-clad principles, and instead think that the thing we should be optimizing for is outcomes. The point of having principles is to optimise decision making for good outcomes. > There's no reason to live under the wrong outcome for the sake of some sort of idealism that brings no benefit to anyone. Having mendacious politicians succeed in their mendacity so easily is of benefit to whom? Re-running votes because you lost is of benefit to the whole of society how? Others in this thread have pointed out the opportunity cost problem, and the bias problem of re-running votes too often. > Rules can be changed as necessary Of course. In this case I do not see the necessity. The polling figures split yes/no in much the same way as they've been since the last time. The only thing that's of any significance that's changed is Brexit, and yet we had the SNP crowing the other day about how it's bringing in more outside investment than the rest of the UK (which was another mendacity, but what isn't from them?). They were also aware of UKIP and its support, and surely the anti-EU support within their own ranks at the time. There is no necessity here.
    - dale_glass 4y ago
      > The point of having principles is to optimise decision making for good outcomes. Having principles optimizes for consistency, not outcomes. To me, turning around on a dime 10 times a day can be perfectly justified, so long that in the end you end up somewhere better than before. Same as going forward in the same direction for a thousand years, so long that's the thing that works. > Having mendacious politicians succeed in their mendacity so easily is of benefit to whom? The voters who want the policy they propose. > Of course. In this case I do not see the necessity. The polling figures split yes/no in much the same way as they've been since the last time. That's quite unimportant to my point here. I'm not talking about UK politics, but specifically rejecting your view of "once in a generation choice". I wouldn't make such promises myself, and would ignore concerns about breaking such a promise. "Once in a generation" to me is never a legitimate rule. "However often, and whenever needed" is. If somebody made that promise, I'm all for breaking it whenever it seems there's any benefit from it.
- mvc 4y ago
  > Yes, you must forgive me for thinking that principles and promises are worth sticking to. I should be as cynical as politicians and simply go by what is convenient, right? So principled that you are happy to stick with a leader who when asked about parties that went on in his house, confidently stated that no parties had taken place.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    I don't support Boris Johnson, I'm not a Tory, I don't care about the stupid parties, cake and beer by anyone and I'd like to know why you're claiming the opposite? Please, I'd like to know why you felt the need to write a completely false comment.
    - mvc 4y ago
      He is the current PM of the UK. The Tory party is dominant in the UK. Now and for the forseeable future. And even in the unforseeable future, more years than not. Independence is the only escape.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        That is not an answer to the question I asked. Why did you state things about another member of HN that you cannot know and are in actual fact entirely wrong. I didn't see an apology either. Are you sure you're in the right place?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hardlianotion 4y ago
Referenda that have a profound impact on your system of government should be rare. There is an impact on both economies in terms of investment and planning. They should be offered in a once in a generation basis. Many (most?) countries have constitutions that forbid splitting up the country. UK is pretty unusual in providing for a referendum of the type that happened in 2014.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Or, you know, require a supermajority instead of disenfranchising voters. You could vote once a day if you did not put the threshold at 50% plus 1.
  - hardlianotion 4y ago
    Why or? They are entirely orthogonal concerns.
mnw21cam 4y ago
The reason for the "once in a generation" promise is that it is widely recognised that holding regular referenda on non-reversible decisions biases in favour of the non-reversible option. Let's imagine for example that genuinely 55% of the population want to remain part of the UK, and so remaining should win given a completely fair and accurate measure of the population's mood. However, every measurement varies for a variety of reasons, for instance what outrageous things some random politician has said in the last few days. If we were to hold a referendum every year, then you'd be bound to hit a year at some point fairly quickly where the random variation pushes the result over the 50% leave threshold. This would trigger the non-reversible transition, and the referenda would stop happening. There's a reasonably strong argument for this reason that non-reversible decisions should require a greater than 50% majority. That's why amendments to the US constitution require a 2/3 majority vote to pass.
- mvc 4y ago
  > There's a reasonably strong argument for this reason that non-reversible decisions should require a greater than 50% majority Cool. I like the idea of that. Other things that seem non-reversible... - building nuclear plants/weapons - burning fossil fuels - dismantling the NHS Let's have a 75% majority required on any of that and I'll happily remain in the UK.
- dale_glass 4y ago
  I think that's much better dealt with a greater than 50% majority requirement than with any kind of timing requirement. There's no reason to believe that a time requirement is a good protection against random politicians saying outrageous things. In fact it probably makes things worse because it gives obvious timelines for a campaign, so whenever the possibility opens up it pretty much guarantees all the outrageous politicians coming out of the woodwork.
  - mnw21cam 4y ago
    Yeah. The problem with requiring a greater than 50% majority is that politically the side that wants the change to happen will complain that it's unfair.
rootusrootus 4y ago
> Holding up to "once in a generation" promises is stupid, though so was making such a claim to start with. It's not a bad way to try and skip a generation that seems to be skewing left, however, and keep power in the hands of the boomer generation. "Sorry, kids, I know you weren't old enough to vote for this before, but we agreed that we wouldn't do it again for a generation."
- brigandish 4y ago
  Would those kids not get a vote in 20 years? Those who are young tend to skew left anyway. As a Danish friend once told me "If you're young and you don't vote left, you have no heart. If you're old and you don't vote right, you have no brains." Ever was it thus.

brigandish 4y ago

> people are allowed to change their opinion Since I've changed mine I think that is called teaching granny to suck eggs. > If what your choice was based on changed, then it's perfectly logical for your choice to change in response. I was told it was a once in a generation vote - has that changed? What constitutes a big enough change to bring a new vote? How often should these type of referenda be held? > Holding up to "once in a generation" promises is stupid, though so was making such a claim to start with. Yes, you must forgive me for thinking that principles and promises are worth sticking to. I should be as cynical as politicians and simply go by what is convenient, right?

maweki 4y ago
Why is holding the pro-independence people to "once in a generation" okay but not holding the contra-independence people to "this is the only way to stay in the EU"? The issue was a vote on staying in the EU as much as staying in the UK. Now these circumstances changed. Also, the promises of further devolution weren't kept either. Again, why are you so hung up on the (let's say) lie of "once in a generation" but not hung up on all the other lies told by the opposition?
- brigandish 4y ago
  > The issue was a vote on staying in the EU as much as staying in the UK I don't even remember it coming up but if it means a lot to you then I can see you'd be aggravated, but how would it obviate the once in a generation pledge? Scotland can't join the EU if it goes independent anyway, the vote to remain really was the only practical way to stay in the EU.
  - maweki 4y ago
    > Scotland can't join the EU if it goes independent anyway Why though? It's not like the UK could dangle a veto over their heads now. Spain already pledged not to veto.
  - synu 4y ago
    The pledge you’re referring to is something every voter signed during the vote? Or something a politician had said? Also curious why Scotland is not able to apply if it leaves the UK? Thanks in advance for the info.
    - smcl 4y ago
      > Also curious why Scotland is not able to apply if it leaves the UK? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-scotland-eu-independent-donald-tusk-dominic-raab-indyref2-a9313336.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-scotla... They're talking nonsense. There is sometimes talk of Spain veto-ing Scottish accession to the EU as a sort of warning to Catalonians (who closely identify with the Scottish indy movement), but realistically Scotland is aligned with the EU acquis so there's no really go reason not to. They won't be able to rejoin on the same terms as the UK were in, but that's something that was lost forever after Brexit.
cygx 4y ago
What constitutes a big enough change to bring a new vote? Leaving the EU?
- brigandish 4y ago
  As Scotland doesn't qualify to join the EU upon independence I'd have to say it's not. What else would be big enough?
  - cygx 4y ago
    Scotland doesn't qualify to join the EU upon independence What would be the problem, assuming the independence gets recognized by London? The border situation? The deficit? Or is there some more fundamental problem I'm unaware of?
    - brigandish 4y ago
      You've mentioned two important factors but the harder standards to be met are economic. This[1] covers it quite thoroughly, is written by someone I would expect is in favour of joining the EU (though I'm not sure) but I think they've done a fair job, and some (some) of the comments too. Once those are met then thorny issues like a hundred mile long border can be looked at. I don't think it's impossible, but, as is covered in the first link (and many other places, did you look?) Scotland cannot swan in to the EU in less than 2 years even at the very best. And without the Euro?[2] [1] https://sceptical.scot/2020/03/can-scotland-meet-eu-economic-criteria/ https://sceptical.scot/2020/03/can-scotland-meet-eu-economic... [2] https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-independent-scotland-would-have-to-adopt-euro-after-joining-eu https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-independen...
dale_glass 4y ago
> I was told it was a once in a generation vote - has that changed? What constitutes a big enough change to bring a new vote? How often should these type of referenda be held? I don't think there's any fixed answer to such a question. But I'd say that if the population in general clearly changes their answer, then that merits putting that change in practice. > Yes, you must forgive me for thinking that principles and promises are worth sticking to. I should be as cynical as politicians and simply go by what is convenient, right? Yup. I'm a consequentialist. I care extremely little about iron-clad principles, and instead think that the thing we should be optimizing for is outcomes. There's no reason to live under the wrong outcome for the sake of some sort of idealism that brings no benefit to anyone. Rules can be changed as necessary, and promises can be reneged on (though IMO such promises shouldn't be made in the first place).
- brigandish 4y ago
  > I care extremely little about iron-clad principles, and instead think that the thing we should be optimizing for is outcomes. The point of having principles is to optimise decision making for good outcomes. > There's no reason to live under the wrong outcome for the sake of some sort of idealism that brings no benefit to anyone. Having mendacious politicians succeed in their mendacity so easily is of benefit to whom? Re-running votes because you lost is of benefit to the whole of society how? Others in this thread have pointed out the opportunity cost problem, and the bias problem of re-running votes too often. > Rules can be changed as necessary Of course. In this case I do not see the necessity. The polling figures split yes/no in much the same way as they've been since the last time. The only thing that's of any significance that's changed is Brexit, and yet we had the SNP crowing the other day about how it's bringing in more outside investment than the rest of the UK (which was another mendacity, but what isn't from them?). They were also aware of UKIP and its support, and surely the anti-EU support within their own ranks at the time. There is no necessity here.
  - dale_glass 4y ago
    > The point of having principles is to optimise decision making for good outcomes. Having principles optimizes for consistency, not outcomes. To me, turning around on a dime 10 times a day can be perfectly justified, so long that in the end you end up somewhere better than before. Same as going forward in the same direction for a thousand years, so long that's the thing that works. > Having mendacious politicians succeed in their mendacity so easily is of benefit to whom? The voters who want the policy they propose. > Of course. In this case I do not see the necessity. The polling figures split yes/no in much the same way as they've been since the last time. That's quite unimportant to my point here. I'm not talking about UK politics, but specifically rejecting your view of "once in a generation choice". I wouldn't make such promises myself, and would ignore concerns about breaking such a promise. "Once in a generation" to me is never a legitimate rule. "However often, and whenever needed" is. If somebody made that promise, I'm all for breaking it whenever it seems there's any benefit from it.
mvc 4y ago
> Yes, you must forgive me for thinking that principles and promises are worth sticking to. I should be as cynical as politicians and simply go by what is convenient, right? So principled that you are happy to stick with a leader who when asked about parties that went on in his house, confidently stated that no parties had taken place.
- brigandish 4y ago
  I don't support Boris Johnson, I'm not a Tory, I don't care about the stupid parties, cake and beer by anyone and I'd like to know why you're claiming the opposite? Please, I'd like to know why you felt the need to write a completely false comment.
  - mvc 4y ago
    He is the current PM of the UK. The Tory party is dominant in the UK. Now and for the forseeable future. And even in the unforseeable future, more years than not. Independence is the only escape.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      That is not an answer to the question I asked. Why did you state things about another member of HN that you cannot know and are in actual fact entirely wrong. I didn't see an apology either. Are you sure you're in the right place?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hardlianotion 4y ago

Referenda that have a profound impact on your system of government should be rare. There is an impact on both economies in terms of investment and planning. They should be offered in a once in a generation basis. Many (most?) countries have constitutions that forbid splitting up the country. UK is pretty unusual in providing for a referendum of the type that happened in 2014.

rootusrootus 4y ago
Or, you know, require a supermajority instead of disenfranchising voters. You could vote once a day if you did not put the threshold at 50% plus 1.
- hardlianotion 4y ago
  Why or? They are entirely orthogonal concerns.

mnw21cam 4y ago

The reason for the "once in a generation" promise is that it is widely recognised that holding regular referenda on non-reversible decisions biases in favour of the non-reversible option. Let's imagine for example that genuinely 55% of the population want to remain part of the UK, and so remaining should win given a completely fair and accurate measure of the population's mood. However, every measurement varies for a variety of reasons, for instance what outrageous things some random politician has said in the last few days. If we were to hold a referendum every year, then you'd be bound to hit a year at some point fairly quickly where the random variation pushes the result over the 50% leave threshold. This would trigger the non-reversible transition, and the referenda would stop happening. There's a reasonably strong argument for this reason that non-reversible decisions should require a greater than 50% majority. That's why amendments to the US constitution require a 2/3 majority vote to pass.

mvc 4y ago
> There's a reasonably strong argument for this reason that non-reversible decisions should require a greater than 50% majority Cool. I like the idea of that. Other things that seem non-reversible... - building nuclear plants/weapons - burning fossil fuels - dismantling the NHS Let's have a 75% majority required on any of that and I'll happily remain in the UK.
dale_glass 4y ago
I think that's much better dealt with a greater than 50% majority requirement than with any kind of timing requirement. There's no reason to believe that a time requirement is a good protection against random politicians saying outrageous things. In fact it probably makes things worse because it gives obvious timelines for a campaign, so whenever the possibility opens up it pretty much guarantees all the outrageous politicians coming out of the woodwork.
- mnw21cam 4y ago
  Yeah. The problem with requiring a greater than 50% majority is that politically the side that wants the change to happen will complain that it's unfair.

rootusrootus 4y ago

> Holding up to "once in a generation" promises is stupid, though so was making such a claim to start with. It's not a bad way to try and skip a generation that seems to be skewing left, however, and keep power in the hands of the boomer generation. "Sorry, kids, I know you weren't old enough to vote for this before, but we agreed that we wouldn't do it again for a generation."

brigandish 4y ago
Would those kids not get a vote in 20 years? Those who are young tend to skew left anyway. As a Danish friend once told me "If you're young and you don't vote left, you have no heart. If you're old and you don't vote right, you have no brains." Ever was it thus.