Support NeoGAF

[ClosingADoor]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Democracy isn't about how many times you can vote per year, that merely devalues the system. Plenty of people feel there vote doesn't count as it is, with pretty bad voting turn outs. Revoting on a issue that has already been decided will be seen simply as "We didn't like the result, go again" and the trust in the voting system will go further down the pan.

If the majority is against Brexit, how will that impact the trust in the government and democracy when they still push it through? This stuff goes both ways.

 

[Donnie]

A ton of things require multiple votes though. Over here if they want to change the constitution, it required both the old and 4 years later the new government to agree with a 2/3 majority for example.

Democracy is not just 50%+1 says this is OK, then we do that and can't do anything else.


We could sent them a new Willem of Orange to replace their current royals. See if the country improves a bit.

The difference is this was never advertised as a first vote with more votes required. It was put to the UK public as a single vote which would decide on the EU once and for all.

 

[Lego Boss]

How on earth could the public respect their right to vote if the government just keep doing revotes until things turn out the way they want? Of all the shit that's come from the referendum, lies and bullshit on both sides, the stupidest thing of all are people saying we should just do another vote because the result didn't go their way. You destroy peoples trust in democracy by doing shit like that.

You can't post on a BREXIT thread and talk about democracy.

The population were lied to - on both sides - if that's democracy then bigger me backwards up Big Ben

 

[Bleepey]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Democracy isn't about how many times you can vote per year, that merely devalues the system. Plenty of people feel there vote doesn't count as it is, with pretty bad voting turn outs. Revoting on a issue that has already been decided will be seen simply as "We didn't like the result, go again" and the trust in the voting system will go further down the pan.

Fine ignore the vote of a non binding referendum on account of the people voting for their own economic suicide.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

These threads always ultimately turn to the royal family for some reason. I'm going to coin some sort of new Godwin's Law.

 

[ClosingADoor]

The difference is this was never advertised as a first vote with more votes required. It was put to the UK public as a single vote which would decide on the EU once and for all.

If we need to talk about how the vote was advertised, can we then also talk about all the lies that have been told? It was put to the UK public that money saved would go to the NHS. Doesn't really happen does it.

Also, the vote was non-binding. Parliament was free to ignore it. So no, there was never a promise that this would be the decision one and for all.

You are basically following the Brexit = Brexit line, and ignoring all context and information that has become available since the vote.

 

[Nerazar]

Brexit in a nutshell.

Same taste, more chances to relish in every piece of chocolate that is left afterwards. I like it.

 

[Acorn]

I can't quite believe the 2010 tribute act May is putting on.

 

[Wrestlemania]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Democracy isn't about how many times you can vote per year, that merely devalues the system. Plenty of people feel there vote doesn't count as it is, with pretty bad voting turn outs. Revoting on a issue that has already been decided will be seen simply as "We didn't like the result, go again" and the trust in the voting system will go further down the pan.

Presumably you agree with having general elections, right? Or in 2015 should we have just said "The people voted Conservative it's what the people voted for we can't have them vote ever again".

Naturally the timescales for a second referendum would be shorter, but that's the nature of the beast. Most people voted in 2016 with an unclear picture of what leaving the EU and the full impact it would have (or were just ignorant, wilfully or otherwise, to the warnings there). As time goes one, the reality will and is setting in and that appears to be turning into a larger majority wishing to remain than originally voted to leave.

As the outcome of the negotiations becomes clearer, and if it's clear the majority of people would reject that in favour of stating, can you really say it's fair and democratic to stand by a decision made before those negotiations started and not give the public the chance to fix their mistake? If a second referendum goes in favour of remain then it's hugely unlikely it'll swing back towards leaving any time soon, especially considering we'll have the generation who voted predominantly for leaving dying out.

Clearly there will be some people who still want Brexit in the face of that, but fuck them. They were happy to accept Brexit on a slim majority and claimed the referendum was entirely democratic. If that them leads to disenfranchisement in those voters then frankly we'll all win.

 

[Donnie]

If the majority is against Brexit, how will that impact the trust in the government and democracy when they still push it through? This stuff goes both ways.

The very act of asking the public to vote again on a issue which was claimed to be a definitive vote the first time round will devalue the voting system, how could it not?

My last word is this, the public were asked to make a definitive vote on the EU. A decision was made, that has to be respected. The idea that people voted to leave because of a sign on the side of a bus is asinine and a revote even more so.

Anyway I'm out now, I've made my point.

 

[Acorn]

Presumably you agree with having general elections, right? Or in 2015 should we have just said "The people voted Conservative it's what the people voted for we can't have them vote ever again".

Naturally the timescales for a second referendum would be shorter, but that's the nature of the beast. People voted in 2016 with either an unclear picture of what leaving the EU and the full picture of the impact it would have (or were just ignorant, wilfully or otherwise, to the warnings there).
As time goes one, we have a better idea of what it looks like and it seems that is turning into a large majority wishing to remain.
As the outcome of the negotiations becomes clearer, and if it's clear the majority of people would reject that in favour of stating, can you really say it's fair and democratic to stand by a decision made before those negotiations started and not give the public the chance to fix their mistake? If a second referendum goes in favour of remain then it's hugely unlikely it'll swing back towards leaving any time soon, especially considering we'll have the generation who voted predominantly for leaving dying out.
Clearly there will be some people who still want Brexit in the face of that, but fuck them. They were happy to accept Brexit on a slim majority and claimed the referendum was entirely democratic. If that them leads to disenfranchisement in those voters then frankly we'll all win.

We're gonna end up crashing out with a remain lead in polls, aren't we?

 

[Wrestlemania]

We're gonna end up crashing out with a remain lead in polls, aren't we?

Yes

 

[daviyoung]

Presumably you agree with having general elections, right? Or in 2015 should we have just said "The people voted Conservative it's what the people voted for we can't have them vote ever again".

Naturally the timescales for a second referendum would be shorter, but that's the nature of the beast. People voted in 2016 with either an unclear picture of what leaving the EU and the full picture of the impact it would have (or were just ignorant, wilfully or otherwise, to the warnings there).
As time goes one, we have a better idea of what it looks like and it seems that is turning into a large majority wishing to remain.
As the outcome of the negotiations becomes clearer, and if it's clear the majority of people would reject that in favour of stating, can you really say it's fair and democratic to stand by a decision made before those negotiations started and not give the public the chance to fix their mistake? If a second referendum goes in favour of remain then it's hugely unlikely it'll swing back towards leaving any time soon, especially considering we'll have the generation who voted predominantly for leaving dying out.
Clearly there will be some people who still want Brexit in the face of that, but fuck them. They were happy to accept Brexit on a slim majority and claimed the referendum was entirely democratic. If that them leads to disenfranchisement in those voters then frankly we'll all win.

I would like a general election every year, but that ain't gonna happen.

What it's important to understand is if you want a second referendum on the initial question "should Britain remain in or leave the EU?" or if it should be second referendum to decide how we leave the EU. Because of its the first, it ain't gonna happen unless there's some serious, irredeemable, Tory-government destroying shit going down in less than 2 years from now.

 

[ClosingADoor]

The very act of asking the public to vote again on a issue which was claimed to be a definitive vote the first time round will devalue the voting system, how could it not?

My last word is this, the public were asked to make a definitive vote on the EU. A decision was made, that has to be respected. The idea that people voted to leave because of a sign on the side of a bus is asinine and a revote even more so.

Anyway I'm out now, I've made my point.

The people were asked to bring an advise, not a binding vote.

Your argument now is, that even if the majority is against Brexit, holding a vote would be undemocratic. That is just... strange.

 

[Jackpot]

So lets have a vote on something, then a bit later if we think people may have changed their minds lets vote again? Then maybe a month later we'll try another vote in case things have changed again?

Should we vote in a government and then a month later do another vote in case people have changed their minds on a certain primeminister/president?

Democracy isn't improved by constant voting every other month, its simply devalued. People won't take there right to vote seriously if they know its just going to a revote anyway.

"We voted for a government in 2015 and now we're being asked to vote again a scant 2 years later. Are we just doing revotes until they get the result they want? They're destroying people's trust in democracy! This is the stupidest thing of all! A decision was made, it has to be respected."

It's been a year since the referendum. Claiming we only get 1 vote and that's it, that's the definitive answer, is baseless and out-and-out retarded. There's literally no justification and is an argument used by people who have run out of excuses.

 

[Acorn]

The very act of asking the public to vote again on a issue which was claimed to be a definitive vote the first time round will devalue the voting system, how could it not?

My last word is this, the public were asked to make a definitive vote on the EU. A decision was made, that has to be respected. The idea that people voted to leave because of a sign on the side of a bus is asinine and a revote even more so.

Anyway I'm out now, I've made my point.

Nonsense it was never the end all and be all. We saw from Farage preemptively calling another referendum for one example.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

Brexit fucks the UK for the next 50 years. Trump fucks the US for the next 4-8

The Supreme Court is going to be hard right for the next 40 years thanks to trump, you don't know what you're talking about

 

[Dirtyshubb]

How on earth could the public respect their right to vote if the government just keep doing revotes until things turn out the way they want? Of all the shit that's come from the referendum, lies and bullshit on both sides, the stupidest thing of all are people saying we should just do another vote because the result didn't go their way. You destroy peoples trust in democracy by doing shit like that.

"Who cares if every day we get more and more evidence telling us that the road we are driving down will eventually lead to a cliff edge were we fall over and everything is fucked. We must defend the will of the people who voted we drive this way, even though there is another road going a different direction but with a better destination".

I appreciate that the optics are bad for something like that, but you know whats worse? Actually going through with it and everyone ending up even worse than we already are.

Polls have shown that if we were to have another vote today the remains would win. We have MP's 'accidentally' showing reports to press that Brexit will be a shit show. We have at least a third of EU nurses thinking about leaving at a time where we are now losing more nurses than we gain. We have an over 880% increase in fruit and veg picker empty vacancies due to Brexit.

This is all before we have left, imagine what it will be like when we actually go?

The chances are slim but i just hope that we get to a point where public opinion changes even more and it becomes a welcome relief when politicians say "Its clear Brexit is a mistake, the country is already suffering and its only going to get worse, we need to remain".

 

[QuantumZebra]

Brexit fucks the UK for the next 50 years. Trump fucks the US for the next 4-8

Yeaa....


No


It's gonna take 20 years to undo this mess

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Yeaa....


No


It's gonna take 20 years to undo this mess

Obama restored our reputation in less than a year.

Which means nothing anyway. Reputation is a vacuous word.

 

[killer_clank]

The people were asked to bring an advise, not a binding vote.

Your argument now is, that even if the majority is against Brexit, holding a vote would be undemocratic. That is just... strange.

It was literally never billed as an advisory vote at all, the government constantly said they would implement whatever the decision was.

 

[TatteredHat]

We've decided once and that choice must be respected to the bitter end regardless of new information.

I'd like to see someone apply that logic to their daily lives, curious to see how long they'd last.

"Oh the traffic light is red, but I don't see any cars so I'll just go ahead and cross the street."
*Car claxons blaring*
"No stopping now, I've made my choice."

 

[autumnleaf]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Democracy isn't about how many times you can vote per year, that merely devalues the system. Plenty of people feel there vote doesn't count as it is, with pretty bad voting turn outs. Revoting on a issue that has already been decided will be seen simply as "We didn't like the result, go again" and the trust in the voting system will go further down the pan.

Why even have MPs or a Parliament at all. Just have referendums for everything.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

The difference is this was never advertised as a first vote with more votes required. It was put to the UK public as a single vote which would decide on the EU once and for all.

Whixh is the problem in the first place.

The government pulled a referendum out of its ass based on an issue most of the country probably didn't give a shit about before, nor did they know most of the important detail needed to make such a decision.

They were given some months to try and sift through all the absolute bullshit that flooded the media in the run up to the referendum And even after the vote, even the fucking government doesn't have a clue how things are going to work.

I mean to put this into perspective, the average Briton was tasked with such a huge decision as competent decision makers on such things, when the Brexit secretary David Davis after the vote, DIDN'T EVEN KNOW YOU COULDN'T NEGOTIATE DEALS WITH SEPERATE MEMBER STATES AND STILL "HASN'T YET LOOKED INTO" THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF BREXIT.

The government had no idea how Brexit works but were to believe Britons knew EXACLTY what the consequences of their vote would be?

You think people knew they were voting for an anti EU movement that has existed for al.ost half a century but that turns out had absolutely no clue or plan on how to implement their ambitions without ruining the UK?
When voters are given more info AFTER the vote than before, that isn't fucking democracy, that's a FAILURE OF democracy and a shit show.

Really though, if :
- this fuck up caused by nothing more than a Tory intraparty power struggle
- gamble with a result that was never planned for
- boosted by an overall right leaning british media
- being carried out by people who either don't believe they're even doing the right thing, don't know what they're doing and have no idea what they need to do to get to the outcome they're not even sure exists as a possibility
- with voters learning every day more info AFTER voting than they ever had before they did

, is what were calling democracy, then maybe we need to redefine what the word means.

I'd like to see someone apply that logic to their daily lives, curious to see how long they'd last.

Pulling out into a main road.

Oh a car is approaching. Didn't see it before I started moving.

Should probably wait for it to pass. It's a approaching quite rapidly.

Hmmmm, but I already decided to go.......rekeased the clutch and everything.......theres No evidence that continuing will result in something good, but if I just keep going.........I'll get what I want.........i will! I bet that guy waving for me to stop just wants me to stop so HE can go ahead of me! Project fear pushing bastard!

LET'S GOOO, FULL THROTTLE!

Of course I can pull out into incoming traffic and have a good outcome, I'M ENGLISH FFS! COME OON ENGLAND! COME OOON ENGLAND! COME OOON ENGLAND!

 

[UpDownLeftRight]

The very act of asking the public to vote again on a issue which was claimed to be a definitive vote the first time round will devalue the voting system, how could it not?

My last word is this, the public were asked to make a definitive vote on the EU. A decision was made, that has to be respected. The idea that people voted to leave because of a sign on the side of a bus is asinine and a revote even more so.

Anyway I'm out now, I've made my point.

You've made the point that if you decide to jump off a cliff then you have to go ahead with it even if you've changed your mind by the time you reach the edge, so congratulations on that I guess.

 

[eizarus]

Honestly, fuck the democratic process. It's not a Procrustes Bed. It fails sometimes. Get over it. The voting majority (by 3%) didn't know what was good for them and fucked up. This is an exceptional circumstance and the decision should be reversed. It shits on not only remain voters, but also those who would now support remain, and future generations.

I'll take a more secure future than a principle that can be manipulated by marketing and bigotry.

 

[Vagabundo]

The sensible thing would be for all the politicians to push for a second referendum at the end of the two years once the details are known.

If a majority vote for it then, well there's no saving yez.

 

[Stallion Dan]

Thread title worse than that bus.

 

[Stallion Dan]

Honestly, fuck the democratic process. It's not a Procrustes Bed. It fails sometimes. Get over it. The voting majority (by 3%) didn't know what was good for them and fucked up. This is an exceptional circumstance and the decision should be reversed. It shits on not only remain voters, but also those who would now support remain, and future generations.

I'll take a more secure future than a principle that can be manipulated by marketing and bigotry.

I mean, the same could be said everytime Tory get to govern, we don't get to reverse that everytime they win.

 

[VariantX]

Trump's supreme court justices will do the long-term damage.

That's pretty much the number #1 reason I voted. Didn't fucking matter how much I liked either Hill or Bern, I just did not want Trump anywhere near the supreme court because that shit can screw over people for a whole generation. Real consequences for troll votes, and abstaining from the process are on the way.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

I mean, the same could be said everytime Tory get to govern, we don't get to reverse that everytime they win.

That moment when you remember that every five years, we get to decide whether we like the effect of the vote we made the last time and get to attempt to effect change if we don't like what we've seen.

You have effectively argued that democracy isn't about constantly voting, by highlighting a system that has Britons voting constantly throughout their lives in a process and place hailed as "the mother of all parliaments".

Turns out, that maybe having more than one vote on things, especially when new information is introduced that the voter was not aware of previous to their last vote, is kind of.......necessary for democracy?

 

[Bony Manifesto]

Honestly, fuck the democratic process. It's not a Procrustes Bed. It fails sometimes. Get over it. The voting majority (by 3%) didn't know what was good for them and fucked up. This is an exceptional circumstance and the decision should be reversed. It shits on not only remain voters, but also those who would now support remain, and future generations.

I'll take a more secure future than a principle that can be manipulated by marketing and bigotry.

Ah, the Putin model of democracy!

Plus, considering this whole mess came about from Cameron looking to subvert the standard legislative process by putting EU membership to a public vote, it should be obvious why ad-hoc rules made during 'exceptional circumstances' are bad news.

 

[eizarus]

I mean, the same could be said everytime Tory get to govern, we don't get to reverse that everytime they win.

I'm down for it

Spoiler

kidding

. Tory's in power and Brexit are different leagues of bad.

Ah, the Putin model of democracy!

Plus, considering this whole mess came about from Cameron looking to subvert the standard legislative process by putting EU membership to a public vote, it should be obvious why ad-hoc rules made during 'exceptional circumstances' are bad news.

Can we not jump into using reductive hyperboles? Smh, you could at least try an accurate one if you really have to.

 

[Soldiussnaku]

Can't the UK do a revote or something?

Get like 60% pro-EU, kick out May and tell the EU it was all a big mistake.

It won't go down like that, my biggest hope was when may came in and had a chance to go for a full soft brexit or even kicking brexit into the long grass so it could be reversed in 2020 or so with the next election. Tories managed to blow that chance not even a year into all of this mess.

That was before the government went batshit fucking crazy and decided to let common sense jump off a cliff.

The best outcome as of now is a labour government coming into power soon and steering negotiations into a soft brexit or a 'jobs first' brexit.

Apart from lib Dems no other party is currently willing to do another referendum so soon.

No tory has the damn stones to come out and cancel the whole thing.

 

[Bleepey]

With Donnie and people of his stubbornness it's like being in a bus with 40 people.21 of them vote to go down the path with swamp land, bandits, wild animals and zombies and leading of a cliff all in the hope of getting to the end destination quicker based on very little evidence. The remainers are saying so far we are wading through swamp land, we're being shot at and it looks like the bastard love child of a The Walking Dead and Hitchcok's the Birds and to make matters worst there are a shit tonnes of road signs saying "turn cliff ahead" but Donnie is screaming about "the Democratic vote must be respected" despite the fact people were either unaware of how shitty the Brexit path would be, or had headphones in at the time. There is no benefit of going down the shitty path, sure you look like you have egg on your face for being dumb enough to go down the stupid route but better than heading of a cliff.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

So what you are saying is these governments have all the freedom to do as they want, eve if it goes against the wishes of the EU. So how come the narrative is the evil EU is forcing their rules on everyone?

Please name me those countries in Europe with a high standard of living outside of the EU. Hint: they don't really exist. Even Switzerland and Norway basically are part of it because it is a benefit to them.

Give me a break. They do exist and they're not part of it. Moreover, a number of members have multiple opt outs. The design is fundamentally flawed and that's why you're experiencing political instability.

Many of the wealthy and powerful nations on this list aren't interested in your style of political/economic union: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_custom...s-origin/introduction/list-noneu-countries_en

Don't need the burden and we can do what we want with you.

 

[avaya]

Give me a break. They do exist and they're not part of it.

Name them.

 

[Ravensmash]

Name them.

I'd also be interesting in hearing this...

 

[daviyoung]

Name them.

Iceland started joining the EU and then were like "nah, actually we're good".

 

[avaya]

I'd also be interesting in hearing this...

He can't because he has confidently, in the vain of your typical Trump supporter, waded into a subject he has a very limited knowledge of and proceeded to link to a page which has very little relevance to what he is saying. Followed by meaningless drivel about apparent political uncertainty in the European Union.

If you don't even know what the EEA is don't even bother starting the discussion. There are no Western Developed countries outside of the current framework that are successful.

Australia and Canada are commodity dependent economies and New Zealand is too small to even consider in this discussion. That leaves just Japan and to out compete Japan you would need to develop comparative advantages in manufacturing that are simply an impossibility for a service sector driven economy like the UK.

No one needs to wish the UK bad luck. Brexit is a guaranteed shitshow.

Iceland started joining the EU and then were like "nah, we're good".

Iceland is in the EEA. Which means you are a fully paid up EU member in all but name but have no power of veto, for which you can have some small concessions on tiny and insignificant industries. Try again.

 

[Muffin1611]

Thread title worse than that bus.

Why?

Give me a break. They do exist and they're not part of it. Moreover, a number of members have multiple opt outs. The design is fundamentally flawed and that's why you're experiencing political instability.

Many of the wealthy and powerful nations on this list aren't interested in your style of political/economic union: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_custom...s-origin/introduction/list-noneu-countries_en

Don't need the burden and we can do what we want with you.

Excuse us, we completely forgot that a country being a powerful and wealthy one equals a high standard of living for its people. Someone should go tell Saudi Arabia. Or Russia.

 

[avaya]

Excuse us, we completely forgot that a country being a powerful and wealthy one equals a high standard of living for its people. Someone should go tell Saudi Arabia. Or Russia.

The majority of the developed world is in the EU/EEA. Listing a bunch of developing economies as a counterpoint is indeed comical.

It is actually easier to list the countries in the developed world outside of the EU/EEA:

US, Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan, South Korea.

 

[daviyoung]

Iceland is in the EEA. Which means you are a fully paid up EU member in all but name but have no power of veto, for which you can have some small concessions on tiny and insignificant industries. Try again.

British fishing will no longer be tiny and insignificant! We're going to make it a great industry again. Great as in big, like Great Britain, not great as in very good, like an American.

 

[spiderman123]

No shit. You regretting this shit now.

 

[KDR_11k]

The sensible thing would be for all the politicians to push for a second referendum at the end of the two years once the details are known.

If a majority vote for it then, well there's no saving yez.

But then voting no won't do a thing.

 

[Bold One]

Maybe the UK wouldn't have such delusions of grandeur if they got rid of the royals.

Nothing to do with the Royals, even though there are obvious problems there - it is to do with the way in which many brits are raised -working and upper class alike to believe in the irrefutable nobility and superiority of being born British.

 

[Alanae]

The argument that its possible to keep redoing the referendum until you get the result you want doesn't make sense unless you assume that the result is something random, and that you can simply just reroll the die till you get the number you want.
If anything, if the way the referendum was set up would make it so that this was the case then that would be all the more reason why the way they went about it was a terrible one, with such an important decision being left to chance.
Surely if the will of the people still clearly wants to go through will brexit they'll just vote for it again? But if the information shown and the events that have transpired in the last year have caused it to change its mind, wouldn't it be fine to let it make that known and pull on the breaks?

 

[TimmmV]

We're gonna end up crashing out with a remain lead in polls, aren't we?

Yep

I'm absolutely certain that in 10 years time most people will be pretending they didn't support Brexit, just like with Iraq

 

[Jackpot]

The argument that its possible to keep redoing the referendum until you get the result you want doesn't make sense unless you assume that the result is something random, and that you can simply just reroll the die till you get the number you want.
If anything, if the way the referendum was set up would make it so that this was the case then that would be all the more reason why the way they went about it was a terrible one, with such an important decision being left to chance.
Surely if the will of the people still clearly wants to go through will brexit they'll just vote for it again? But if the information shown and the events that have transpired in the last year have caused it to change its mind, wouldn't it be fine to let it make that known and pull on the breaks?

It's because Leave voters don't understand the basics of democracy. See: "Voting is undemocratic".

 

[SlipperyFishes]

Give me a break. They do exist and they're not part of it. Moreover, a number of members have multiple opt outs. The design is fundamentally flawed and that's why you're experiencing political instability.

Many of the wealthy and powerful nations on this list aren't interested in your style of political/economic union: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_custom...s-origin/introduction/list-noneu-countries_en

Don't need the burden and we can do what we want with you.

Your United States can't even keep its own union of states in check. That political union is a joke. How many of them are now rebelling against Trumps climate change nonsense.

Sort your own crap out before flinging shit elsewhere.