3 ms·

So how else should have they responded to the referendum and the people's will?

sk11001 3y ago
It's not about the response after it happened, it's about whether you should set decades of foreign policy based on a single vote with a small margin.
- Whoppertime 3y ago
  The 2000 Election between Bush and Gore was a single vote with a small margin that decided the course of middle east policy for the next 100 years 2016 and 2020 has Small margins and shaped a lot of important foreign policy 2024 seems like it may be more of the same
  - sk11001 3y ago
    The difference from the EU referendum is that there's a presidential election every 4 years and 2-term limit.
  - staticman2 3y ago
    The 2000 Bush vs Gore election only shaped middle eastern policy in the sense that Bush's parents deciding to not use Birth control in 1945 shaped middle eastern policy. It's not really the same sort of cause and effect as a direct election on a particular issue.
ceejayoz 3y ago
“You elected us to make tough, sometimes unpopular decisions. We’ll take this under advisement, but until important details are worked out this cannot be immediately acted upon responsibly.” There’s a reason the resolution was non-binding. Maybe an act this big should have required 2/3 majority.
- Whoppertime 3y ago
  "Until important details are worked out this cannot be immediately acted upon responsibly". That sounds exactly like the 3 years of Will they Won't they that made up the Theresa May Administration and her handling of Brexit!
midasuni 3y ago
“You have 47 tabs open, are you sure you wish to close your web browser” Good enough for something g as inconsequential as pressing alt-f4, but not for ripping away the birthright and citizenship of tens of millions of people.
- pseudalopex 3y ago
  Another referendum to accept or reject specific terms would have been justified. But people did not vote to leave the EU accidentally.
dagmx 3y ago
Require more than a simple majority for a change that would change the entire working mode of the countries economy? And while we’re at it, make it illegal for politicians to spread baseless misinformation? If you say something you have to back it up.
FridgeSeal 3y ago
Literally the grandparent comment talks about how the whole brexit was basically a massive propaganda event, “people’s will” seems like a bit of a stretch. The Tories knew exactly what they were doing, and how they were doing it, and could have backed out at almost any time. Knowing that they were deliberately misleading people, they arguably should have backed out instead of going ahead with their colossally atrocious decision. In short: referendum and people’s will kind of requires an informed populace and an informed decision, the Brexit vote was neither of those things. Maybe the only upside was demonstrating to everyone else what a godawful decision it is to self-immolate by leaving the EU is.
xoa 3y ago
It's a democracy. The entire house of commons are there by the "people's will" too are they not? Their entire job as professional political representatives is to more carefully weigh decisions based on what they think is best for their constituents and their nation. Why should a single non-binding non-mandatory simple majority referendum with plenty of lies slung around and dark money override democracy in your mind? They should have responded in such ways as 1: "Thank you for your interest we will take the result under advisement and form a committee to study the matter" and then shit can it. If "the people" cared enough they'd make it an election issue. 2. "We have come up with three proposals for how to respond. There will be another referendum, this time binding, with ranked choice (or whatever) to decide which specific path to take, with status quo as option 4. At least 60% of at least a 60% turnout is necessary to pick one, otherwise we stick with the status quo." Then run that. Or many other choices. But make no mistake there were LOTS of options beyond the extreme one picked.
- dfawcus 3y ago
  It is not possible in the UK to have a "binding referendum", merely a "self executing one". i.e. one where prior legislation is activated based upon the result of the poll.
skissane 3y ago
They should have required a "double majority" - both a "Leave" majority nationally, and a "Leave" majority in at least three out of the four constituent countries. Then "Leave" would have failed. Obviously, they should have announced this rule before having the referendum. There is precedent for this - Australia uses effectively the same criteria for constitutional amendments (both a majority nationally and a majority in the majority of states). Although, unlike Australia, the UK doesn't have a written constitution, and isn't formally a federation (although devolution has given it quasifederal features), the UK definitely needs something like that given the extreme lopsidedness of its population (one of its four members, England, being roughly 80% of the total
dfawcus 3y ago
Legally they could have ignored it. Then taken their knocks in the next GE.
- mike_hearn 3y ago
  They did that. That was the constitutional crisis that occurred after the next election, in which all the major parties promised to respect the referendum and implement the vote, thus ensuring it was fought mostly on domestic issues. Then after being elected large numbers of MPs announced that in fact they weren't going to let the UK leave, and wanted to impose a second "People's Vote". These MPs had done exactly what some people on this thread are asking for: they agreed to a referendum and then decided they didn't like the result so they wouldn't obey it. What happened next seems to have been largely memory holed: Johnson kicked the rebels out of the Conservative party (Labour did not), sending his party from having a majority to deep minority. Parliament then went entirely rogue and attempted to take over the Brexit process from the government in order to directly kill it. Johnson asked for a new election to take the mess back to the people, and the rogue MPs denied that too. They knew full well they had directly stabbed the electorate in the back and they'd all lose their jobs at the next GE as a result, so they just ... refused to hold a GE. This was by far the biggest constitutional crisis the UK has had in my lifetime. Representative democracy is built on the basic assumption that if politicians say they believe in X, campaign on X and then get voted in because of X, that they will actually vote for X in Parliament. If large numbers of MPs claim they will support something and are just baldly lying, democracy dies. And that's what happened. The crisis was ended only by a stroke of luck: the head of the Liberal Democrats became so delusional she began to drink the rebel MPs own kool-aid, and think that the population actually supported their desire for a second People's Vote. After blocking a new election for a long period, she decided to vote with Johnson's remaining loyal MPs to trigger one, at which point all the rebels including her were wiped out. Every single one lost their seats. So, what you ask for actually happened. It didn't work because the British people voted the same way and for the same things they did in the referendum.
  - dfawcus 3y ago
    Except I was not asking for it, simply making an observation. If the MPs actually wanted to be successful in thwarting it, they should have blocked the sending of the Article 50 notification. i.e. either placed conditions on the notification Act, or denied it passing. My view is that they were too craven (or stupid) at the time to show their true convictions. Anyway, the faffing about was a different Parliament, the withdrawal was sent 29th March 2017, then we had a GE and May lost her majority. I'd not view any of those "rogue parliament" events as a constitutional crisis, they're representatives, not delegates. As has been pointed out before, we have no legitimate expectations from anything an MP says to be elected. Our only recourse is to subsequently vote them out. A constitutional crisis would only really have happened if the Scottish MPs (possibly with MSPs) had acted to thwart things - i.e. end the Union; but the then SNP folks were (and still are) too happy in their gravy. As to an earlier 2019 GE, with the FTPA they were not obliged to do so. Yes their faffing about was annoying, and I take the view that folks were just sick of them dithering, hence the 2019 GE result. However, one should not really speak of the UK being a democracy. We (well strictly England, as the Scottish rules are generally ignored) are an absolute monarchy where parliament has wrested away most of the power, and handed it to the cabinet, which really means the PM. (The Scottish monarchy was never absolute.) As has been observed in the past, the UK is essentially an elected dictatorship, which depends upon those in power being "good guys". Recent events have shown how fragile that is, yet still it has not been (and probably will not be) reformed.
tim333 3y ago
Figured out the deal and then gone back for a do you want this vote?
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Don't allow a vote between "remain" (which was pretty clear what it meant), and an unspecified "leave" (which everyone could interpret according to their own wishes). That is, if I didn't want to remain, did I want a hard exit? A Switzerland-like situation? Something else? Voting "leave" didn't mean that I would get what I wanted.
- mike_hearn 3y ago
  Nor did voting Remain. The EU isn't a static thing.
oh_sigh 3y ago
The obvious answer is to it have the standard be "50% + 1". If the desire is to do nothing or do something, and the vote is roughly equal, then generally you should just do nothing because of the increased cost of doing something. If 66%+ or 75%+ of people want to do something, then go for it.

It's not about the response after it happened, it's about whether you should set decades of foreign policy based on a single vote with a small margin.

Whoppertime 3y ago
The 2000 Election between Bush and Gore was a single vote with a small margin that decided the course of middle east policy for the next 100 years 2016 and 2020 has Small margins and shaped a lot of important foreign policy 2024 seems like it may be more of the same
- sk11001 3y ago
  The difference from the EU referendum is that there's a presidential election every 4 years and 2-term limit.
- staticman2 3y ago
  The 2000 Bush vs Gore election only shaped middle eastern policy in the sense that Bush's parents deciding to not use Birth control in 1945 shaped middle eastern policy. It's not really the same sort of cause and effect as a direct election on a particular issue.

ceejayoz 3y ago

“You elected us to make tough, sometimes unpopular decisions. We’ll take this under advisement, but until important details are worked out this cannot be immediately acted upon responsibly.” There’s a reason the resolution was non-binding. Maybe an act this big should have required 2/3 majority.

Whoppertime 3y ago
"Until important details are worked out this cannot be immediately acted upon responsibly". That sounds exactly like the 3 years of Will they Won't they that made up the Theresa May Administration and her handling of Brexit!

midasuni 3y ago

“You have 47 tabs open, are you sure you wish to close your web browser” Good enough for something g as inconsequential as pressing alt-f4, but not for ripping away the birthright and citizenship of tens of millions of people.

pseudalopex 3y ago
Another referendum to accept or reject specific terms would have been justified. But people did not vote to leave the EU accidentally.

dagmx 3y ago

Require more than a simple majority for a change that would change the entire working mode of the countries economy? And while we’re at it, make it illegal for politicians to spread baseless misinformation? If you say something you have to back it up.

FridgeSeal 3y ago

Literally the grandparent comment talks about how the whole brexit was basically a massive propaganda event, “people’s will” seems like a bit of a stretch. The Tories knew exactly what they were doing, and how they were doing it, and could have backed out at almost any time. Knowing that they were deliberately misleading people, they arguably should have backed out instead of going ahead with their colossally atrocious decision. In short: referendum and people’s will kind of requires an informed populace and an informed decision, the Brexit vote was neither of those things. Maybe the only upside was demonstrating to everyone else what a godawful decision it is to self-immolate by leaving the EU is.

xoa 3y ago

It's a democracy. The entire house of commons are there by the "people's will" too are they not? Their entire job as professional political representatives is to more carefully weigh decisions based on what they think is best for their constituents and their nation. Why should a single non-binding non-mandatory simple majority referendum with plenty of lies slung around and dark money override democracy in your mind? They should have responded in such ways as 1: "Thank you for your interest we will take the result under advisement and form a committee to study the matter" and then shit can it. If "the people" cared enough they'd make it an election issue. 2. "We have come up with three proposals for how to respond. There will be another referendum, this time binding, with ranked choice (or whatever) to decide which specific path to take, with status quo as option 4. At least 60% of at least a 60% turnout is necessary to pick one, otherwise we stick with the status quo." Then run that. Or many other choices. But make no mistake there were LOTS of options beyond the extreme one picked.

dfawcus 3y ago
It is not possible in the UK to have a "binding referendum", merely a "self executing one". i.e. one where prior legislation is activated based upon the result of the poll.

skissane 3y ago

They should have required a "double majority" - both a "Leave" majority nationally, and a "Leave" majority in at least three out of the four constituent countries. Then "Leave" would have failed. Obviously, they should have announced this rule before having the referendum. There is precedent for this - Australia uses effectively the same criteria for constitutional amendments (both a majority nationally and a majority in the majority of states). Although, unlike Australia, the UK doesn't have a written constitution, and isn't formally a federation (although devolution has given it quasifederal features), the UK definitely needs something like that given the extreme lopsidedness of its population (one of its four members, England, being roughly 80% of the total

dfawcus 3y ago

Legally they could have ignored it. Then taken their knocks in the next GE.

mike_hearn 3y ago
They did that. That was the constitutional crisis that occurred after the next election, in which all the major parties promised to respect the referendum and implement the vote, thus ensuring it was fought mostly on domestic issues. Then after being elected large numbers of MPs announced that in fact they weren't going to let the UK leave, and wanted to impose a second "People's Vote". These MPs had done exactly what some people on this thread are asking for: they agreed to a referendum and then decided they didn't like the result so they wouldn't obey it. What happened next seems to have been largely memory holed: Johnson kicked the rebels out of the Conservative party (Labour did not), sending his party from having a majority to deep minority. Parliament then went entirely rogue and attempted to take over the Brexit process from the government in order to directly kill it. Johnson asked for a new election to take the mess back to the people, and the rogue MPs denied that too. They knew full well they had directly stabbed the electorate in the back and they'd all lose their jobs at the next GE as a result, so they just ... refused to hold a GE. This was by far the biggest constitutional crisis the UK has had in my lifetime. Representative democracy is built on the basic assumption that if politicians say they believe in X, campaign on X and then get voted in because of X, that they will actually vote for X in Parliament. If large numbers of MPs claim they will support something and are just baldly lying, democracy dies. And that's what happened. The crisis was ended only by a stroke of luck: the head of the Liberal Democrats became so delusional she began to drink the rebel MPs own kool-aid, and think that the population actually supported their desire for a second People's Vote. After blocking a new election for a long period, she decided to vote with Johnson's remaining loyal MPs to trigger one, at which point all the rebels including her were wiped out. Every single one lost their seats. So, what you ask for actually happened. It didn't work because the British people voted the same way and for the same things they did in the referendum.
- dfawcus 3y ago
  Except I was not asking for it, simply making an observation. If the MPs actually wanted to be successful in thwarting it, they should have blocked the sending of the Article 50 notification. i.e. either placed conditions on the notification Act, or denied it passing. My view is that they were too craven (or stupid) at the time to show their true convictions. Anyway, the faffing about was a different Parliament, the withdrawal was sent 29th March 2017, then we had a GE and May lost her majority. I'd not view any of those "rogue parliament" events as a constitutional crisis, they're representatives, not delegates. As has been pointed out before, we have no legitimate expectations from anything an MP says to be elected. Our only recourse is to subsequently vote them out. A constitutional crisis would only really have happened if the Scottish MPs (possibly with MSPs) had acted to thwart things - i.e. end the Union; but the then SNP folks were (and still are) too happy in their gravy. As to an earlier 2019 GE, with the FTPA they were not obliged to do so. Yes their faffing about was annoying, and I take the view that folks were just sick of them dithering, hence the 2019 GE result. However, one should not really speak of the UK being a democracy. We (well strictly England, as the Scottish rules are generally ignored) are an absolute monarchy where parliament has wrested away most of the power, and handed it to the cabinet, which really means the PM. (The Scottish monarchy was never absolute.) As has been observed in the past, the UK is essentially an elected dictatorship, which depends upon those in power being "good guys". Recent events have shown how fragile that is, yet still it has not been (and probably will not be) reformed.

tim333 3y ago

Figured out the deal and then gone back for a do you want this vote?

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

Don't allow a vote between "remain" (which was pretty clear what it meant), and an unspecified "leave" (which everyone could interpret according to their own wishes). That is, if I didn't want to remain, did I want a hard exit? A Switzerland-like situation? Something else? Voting "leave" didn't mean that I would get what I wanted.

mike_hearn 3y ago
Nor did voting Remain. The EU isn't a static thing.

oh_sigh 3y ago

The obvious answer is to it have the standard be "50% + 1". If the desire is to do nothing or do something, and the vote is roughly equal, then generally you should just do nothing because of the increased cost of doing something. If 66%+ or 75%+ of people want to do something, then go for it.