Not just those that lost, Ultra - a large number of ‘winners’ (though what they won is garbage) want one too.
Their will can’t be fulfilled, anyway.
What is their will, though? The referendum didn’t ask them what policy they want enacted, it just asked them whether they wanted to stop the current policy (of being in the EU). There was no replacement on offer, and there is no extraordinary democratic backing for any particular change.
I’m an American in a state with a moderately high number of referendums. I think it’s too many, really, but what they all are, with one exception I’ll go into, is choices between two concrete options. The taxes are raised by a specific amount or the taxes stay the same, the constitution is amended with this specific language or it stays the same, the restaurant gets a liquor license or it remains without one, etc.
If I simply got asked “should the state Constitution be amended,” with no details as to what it should say afterwards, that would obviously not be a complete expression of my will. And, indeed, the voters of my state are asked that every twenty years. But (were it to pass which it never does) that’s the opening of a process in which I will be consulted at least two more times, because nobody thinks that “yes the Constitution should be amended” means anything other than that I’d like to begin the process. Nobody starts repeating “amendment means amendment” like a myna bird while pushing an amendment that focuses on their personal hobby horse, it’s not dominated by the internal machinations of a single political party, nobody demands that a particularly extreme amendment be foisted on people because everybody should have known what “yes it should be amended” meant. And if the politicians in my state were dumb enough to do something like that, and let people vote in the referendum structured like that, it still wouldn’t confer some magical overriding democratic legitimacy on some arbitrary “amendment means amendment” plan hatched after the fact.
Let’s say we have a referendum, put forward by a leader as a practical joke, that we should nuke London. Let’s say that, for whatever sick reason, that referendum succeeds. Should the British government say, “Welp, hands tied, the people want it, time to nuke London!”?
A referendum cannot/should not be a suicide pact.
Ideally, Parliament would say, “Wow, guys, we tried this Brexit thing, and it turns out there’s really no way to make it work that isn’t going to kneecap our country for decades to come, so… Sorry.” Particularly when the actual referendum was largely based on dishonest propaganda on the leave side and only had a 2% majority. Particularly when it was not clear to many on the leave side that it would be a catastrophe. Particularly when public opinion has clearly shifted in the past 2 years. The whole thing is stupid front to back, and if parliament had any goddamn sense they’d end this farce, but… Well, here we are. Maybe we can agree to cancel article 50, then spend some time hashing out all the details with the EU before putting ourselves on top of a ticking time bomb.
Oh please. On threads in this board, a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, we still have people insisting that we cannot know that a no-deal brexit would be a catastrophe, that customs officers in France would just let British goods through because “who cares what Brussels thinks anyways”, and more! The leavers weren’t just badly misinformed then, they’re still badly misinformed now. There’s still a contingency of people who just insist that everything will be fine, that it won’t be difficult, that it will be good for the UK. In June 2018, long after the belief made any sense to keep, some 50% of Leavers thought that Brexit would be good for Britain’s economy, and only 17% thought it would be worse off (table 13, page 18)!
Think about that for a moment. Only slightly more than one in six leavers have cottoned on to the fact that Brexit is going to suck a whole awful lot for Britain’s economy.
And you want to say they knew this back in 2016?!
(Actaully, we don’t have to guess; the table has the data for September 2016, and it has remained disturbingly constant.)
No, leavers are still, by and large, ignorant of the consequences of their decision. They didn’t think it would be difficult. That belief is, by the by, completely fucking insane, so the next question is, “how the fuck did they get fooled into thinking that disentangling a country from a capital and trade union it had been a part of for 50 years would be easy?!” Well, one possible hint: here’s Buzzfeed with 11 times prominent Leavers said that brexit would be easy. If you were surprised to find Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage on that list… Why the fuck would you be surprised to see Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage on that list?!
They’re also distinctly a minority. Part of democracy is self-correction. It’s one thing to complain about a “do-over” when people were saying, “Shoot, if I had known it would go this way, I would have gone out to vote!” But… Let’s get a little bit of perspective. The Brexit referendum was in June 2016. In November 2016, the USA got a complete mulligan on control over the house of representatives. In November 2018, the USA got another complete mulligan on control over the house of representatives. It’s now January 2019. Basically, if two years is enough time for the USA to completely change its mind over who should control the house of representatives (and to do so incredibly decisively, at that!), maybe it’s enough time for Britain to take a mulligan on a referendum which most informed observers are describing as “an incredibly fucking terrible decision”. (…Well, okay, not in as many words, obviously.)
Particularly when there’s been a fairly huge amount of new information in the meanwhile, and the government has shown it’s completely and utterly incapable of implementing Brexit in all but the dumbest, most destructive way - and unable to make effective contingency plans for that, either - the idea that this is “just a do-over” is farcical.
Not really a fair comparison. To make it work, you’d need to:
- Add a two-year period between the first vote and the demands for the second
- Make it clear that the main reason people were not swayed by the opposition argument is because they did not believe it and treated it as propaganda
- Add a whole bunch of new information in the intervening time that shows both that the opposition argument was accurate, that the pro-position was entirely based on fabrications, and that it’s going to be worse than anyone thought
- Add that the government responsible for building the state university was unable to get anyone to build it other than a company that is laughably unqualified for the job (by the by, this is just one of the many, many articles in the genre “brexit as a tragic metaphor for itself”), and despite that they’re about to go ahead with it anyways.
- Building this university will somehow crash the economy. I don’t know how building a state university would cause a 10% drop in GDP, but well, it will. (In other words: your comparison is completely distorting the scale of the consequences.)
- Add that public opinion polling has shifted against building the university in the intervening two years
Under those circumstances, would you support a re-vote? I wouldn’t, because at that point allowing a vote at all is a huge fucking mistake to begin with. The government is not up for the task, ergo the government should not do it. They’ve been hired as representatives, and sometimes part of that is being the adult in the room, and refusing to do something incredibly stupid and harmful, even if it has public support. But failing that… Yeah, there’s absolutely no reason you shouldn’t do a second referendum.
It was, very clearly, an advisory referendum. That’s why it was “non-binding”. I’m sorry if the talking heads you were watching didn’t make that clear. The 1975 referendum was similarly non-binding, although in that instance the UK had already been an EC member for two years.
And as I said above, Parliament has enacted the will of the people by pursuing a policy of leaving the EU. It is not required to do so no matter what the cost, however, and certainly not when what their “will” is is so fundamentally unclear.
As previously pointed out: no, this is not what happened. upwards of 80% of Leavers were convinced then (and are still convinced now) that leaving would be good or neutral for the UK’s economy. Because that’s the lie that was sold to them in the lead-up to the campaign, and that’s the lie that the Tories keep feeding them over and over again. (Does “Project Fear” ring any bells?) Position 1 would better be described as “Vote Leave and everything will be better, we’ll be more independent, we’ll have more control over our economy, the EU will grovel before us, MAKE BRITAIN GREAT AGAIN”. And it was nonsense then - it’s super fucking nonsense now. But somehow, that’s where we are.
No, but the margins have. Polling “remain” (a concrete policy position) vs. “the May deal” (another concrete policy position) gives us 59-41 for Remain. I haven’t found polling comparing “remain” vs. “Hard brexit”, but the idea that hard brexit is even on the table is a fucking joke.
And no, we cannot simply say “remain vs leave”. That’s an asinine way to phrase the poll. “Remain” is a concrete policy position - cancel article 50 and stay in the EU. “Leave” is… not. It’s not actually a policy position. It’s a whole host of policy positions, often directly contradictory ones (do we care more about free trade or restricting immigration?), all with their own upsides and downsides, and packaging it as “leave” allows you to skate over the specific tradeoffs involved with any specific policy.
This whole issue is stupid built on stupid built on a foundation of incredibly stupid.
Again - no they don’t. 50% of leavers think it will be good for the economy. Only 17% think it will be bad for the economy.
Is it at all relevant that one of these sides is, y’know, actually right?
Also:
- Add that the full text of the referendum was “build a state university” with absolutely no details as to where, how, or what exactly that means.
Man, it’s almost as if this analogy is really really bad.
Folk arguing for a 2nd referendum are deluded imo. The mistrust between the electorate and Parliament, already significant, would become a gaping chasm if a 2nd referendum were held so soon after the last one. If you thought populism under Trump was bad just wait until a 2nd referendum on Brexit. Many MP’ s(in all parties) with constituency majorities of 10,000 or so will find their seats marginal in any subsequent General Election. The electorate, already complaining about elites in Westminster/Washington, will rally around any number of an elitist causes in future years. Labour strongholds in any many northern towns will fall, many Tory heartlands shall be Tory heartlands no more. A 2nd Brexit referendum will cause a seismic shift in UK politics.
And then you discover they destroy a national park to build a major road that will lead to the new university that is built on the site of the now-to-be-bulldozed town hospital.
Honestly, I think we’re heading to a seismic shift anyway. What do you think will happen if we leave and none of the Leave promises bear fruit, but in fact people are poorer, more miserable, and feel thoroughly cheated? Do you think they’ll just shrug and say ‘Oh well, c’est la vie’?
But here is the problem, and I believe that you expressed it in other threads (if it was not you, I apologize). The powers that be in many cases propose referendums that they desire to pass. Once passed, they are forever allowed to stand as the Will of the People.
Other popular votes, that are favored by the people (or at least a higher percentage of the people than their elected representatives favor) are suppressed and it takes an extraordinary effort to have them pass.
You see this with school bond amendments. Fail, next year revote, fail, next year revote fail, next year PASS! The people have spoken! So sayeth the people so sayeth the Lord! What a grand system of rule by the governed we have here in this state!
I am so happy that my children are here to witness this harnessing of power by the people! No further vote is needed for the next thirty years!
And this is on those simple and concrete issues.
The Leave side fought and fought and fought against Governments of both parties to get the Brexit vote. They were promised that Parliament would uphold it. The Government hoped it would fail.
It’s an absolute affront to good faith to say that now that we are in the trenches of negotiation that we need a re-vote. Does anyone really think that if in two years Brussels commits another outrage that the Leave side will get an additional referendum, as is “regular in democracy”? Of course not.
The Leave side got what was known to everyone as a once in a lifetime shot, and it is not fair for the Government to use its known opposition to Brexit to keep hammering against it when it previously declared that there would be a fair referendum on it.
Further, I disagree that this vote is any less concrete than a tax increase. The vote was to Leave. The other details to be worked out. Likewise a 10% tax increase is passed. How it is spent is to be worked out.
I still contend that the arguments have not changed. The UK has not left the EU. The Remain side is still arguing that these horribles will happen. That is the same argument that they used, and lost, in June 2016. That is not a reason for a revote. If Brexit happens, and the horribles come to pass, THEN the Remain side can say that we were right and you were wrong and let us reconsider.
The voters who voted for the new University can object to all of those things without giving up the idea that they still want a University.
IOW, the people voted to Leave. How they leave, or what methods are used, or any new referendum should be only based upon the method of leaving, not the revisiting of the question of leaving.
This left wing talking point which has sprung up recently is most anti-democratic and implies that even when conservatives win elections, the left should still win because they are the “adults.” Let’s just cancel elections and let Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decree policy.
No, I don’t believe folk would just shrug their shoulders under such circumstances. However, the electorate would have a clear(ish) choice in front of them. They would have a party(the lib dems) on their ballot paper who have remained fairly committed to staying in the EU, or they could choose between either of the main 2 parties and whatever Brexit policy the 2 main parties are then proposing. The electorate can support or kick out whichever party is deems worthy of supporting or kicking out. A Parliamtary U-turn on Brexit though will mean ALL cards are off the table when it comes to future Parliamentary politics.
We have seen the yellow vest movement rock the French political establishment; a movement sparked by a marginal increase in fuel tax. I can only imagine what a Brexit U-turn would spark here in the UK. I predict populism (of some sort of another) on steroids.
“If”.
Man. You sound like the kind of optimist who, when placed in front of a firing squad thinks, “Hey, maybe I’m magically immune to bullets and they’ll have to let me go!” We’ve had two and a half years to examine the evidence surrounding brexit. Turns out, the evidence is clear: Brexit is gonna suck. If they simply crash out at the end of March (given the failure of the May deal, unless the UK ends up remaining, that’s where they’re heading), we’re probably looking at about an 8% drop in British GDP. For context: that’s a lot.
The response of most leavers to the numerous studies that show serious problems arising from brexit? They stuff their fingers in their ears and wish on a fucking star.
There’s so much wrong here that we’ve literally just gone over, and some of it is so poorly-thought-out that I don’t really know where to start (maybe here: “10% (income) tax increase” may well be a concrete proposal; how those funds are spent has nothing to do with the fact that they are collected; a better analogy would be “raise funds” with absolutely no details on how or how much, and then to have people arguing over whether it’s a tax hike or a bake sale/bottle drive). But really, what interests me more than that is what you think - do you think the result of Brexit will be negative for the British economy?
I love how I spent quite a while writing out a thorough response and you plucked one line from it, stripped that line of all context, and pretended I implied something with it I most certainly don’t. The reason we have representatives (as opposed to direct democracy) is at least in part for cases like this - representatives are expected to know better than the average joe on the street. My mechanic, my barber, the guy who makes kebab down the street, they probably aren’t economists, lawyers, or experts on international trade. They don’t have to be! That’s why they have a representative! And sometimes, they would support something incredibly stupid, because they don’t know any better. (Am I implying that leavers supported something incredibly stupid? No - I’m just flat-out saying it.) And in those cases, the representatives don’t necessarily need to go along with it. As said - a referendum is not a suicide pact.
Imagine that the referendum wasn’t “leave the EU” but rather “ban fractional reserve banking”. Would you still say it’s unreasonable for representatives to play the adult in the room and say, “No, we won’t do that, that’s insane”?
But policy cannot work that way. You cannot have a vote on say, shuttering the public swimming pool, and the anti-side argues that children will be left with no wholesome summertime activities, but the pro-side says that is wrong.
The referendum passes: we will shut the public pools.
Now a year later, a month before the pools would have otherwise opened, the anti-side again says “Look, no wholesome activities out there” and asks for a re-vote based upon their previously stated position.
Or better yet. The U.S. holds a referendum on building Trump’s wall saying that we are being swamped by illegal immigrants. The people vote no. But look, we are still being swamped, so let’s vote again.
If policies prove to be a mistake, AFTER they go into effect, then that is a change that the people should revisit. Not the hypotheticals that were previously argued to stop the agreed upon change.
That’s actually a solid argument for not having referenda in the first place. I lean to your side on that for the reasons you argue.
But if you are going to have them, you cannot lie to the people and say that their vote on this issue counts…but only if you vote the right way.
The UK never said that Leave was such an absurd thing, much like eliminating fractional reserve banking, that it should not even be the topic of debate. It recognized that position as valid, so much so that it put it to a referendum. Once that is done, they cannot be heard to say that they must be “adults” and override it. That is bad faith.
Stop minimizing.
Seriously.
Stop it.
We’re talking about a recession the size of the 2008 crash. We’re not talking about a state university, or a fucking swimming pool. This analogy is awful precisely because that’s the kind of trivial, menial bullshit where any kind of emergency intervention would be inherently laughable.
But we’re not talking about a fucking swimming pool. We’re talking about the largest economic downturn since 2008, if not 1937. We’re talking major shortages of food and medicine. We’re talking about closing the Ireland-North Ireland border, which is seriously problematic (or should I say Troublesome?).
So if you insist on using metaphors, pick a metaphor that makes any sense. Is the consequence of that swimming pool closing 7.5% unemployment? No? Get that shit out of here.
This is also pretty ridiculous. If we vote on a policy to be implemented three years from now, and the state of evidence at the time is that it will probably be bad policy, then the fact that, two years down the line, the state of the evidence has shifted to “this will be the single worst policy decision in internatial politics snice the 2003 invasion of Iraq”, then we shouldn’t have to wait until we’ve made that terrible decision to reevaluate it based on the evidence.
Also, you never answered my question.
It’s clear he thinks the Remain people are scare mongering. Politically he is very much sympathetic to Brexit and other similar movements (like Trumpism).
That’s why he is continually minimizing the issue.
I mean, in theory, I don’t have a huge problem with referenda. In practice, everything about the brexit referendum was a complete and utter clusterfuck. Just… everything. It broke basically every cardinal rule of referenda.
Are we allowed to update that understanding based on new evidence? I feel like we should be allowed to do that. And there’s been a fair amount of new evidence showing that “leave” is about as smart as aiming a shotgun directly at your testicles and pulling the trigger in the hopes of ending up with a Prince Albert.