Support NeoGAF

[StayDead]

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.

If we were asked for a definitive vote then the choices would've been more than a yes/no question and they would've made the referendum legally binding in court.

It was only ever advisory and it failed at that also given the fact a 48% minority of voters to 52% majority (a 2 % discrepancy) is enough to say "WE WANT TO LEAVE ENTIRELY AND FUCK EVERYTHING UP"

 

[danm999]

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.

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.

Just as it was never advertised as the first vote with many more required, it was also never advertised as the final say on the matter from now to eternity. Cuts both ways ultimately.

I mean before the referendum even Nigel Farage said if Remain won by the same margin Brexit would be "unfinished business".

 

[TimmmV]

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 a fair enough argument if the assumption is that no more referendums will be offered after the first remain majority, that does make a bit of a mockery of a referendum as a concept

But thats beside the point really. Given that Brexit is basically irreversible, and the original question was so broad, I don't really see there being a democratic problem with doing a 2nd referendum once the actual deal is known. The argument that "we cant just repeat referendums until we get the result you want" is just as nonsensical as "well we had one referendum, so now we need to rigidly stick to its result, regardless of whether circumstances or public opinion drastically change"

If the UK still votes to leave after that then they're beyond saving

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Name them.

Iceland, Switzerland, Norway do very well. Furthermore, members that do not fully participate (opt outs) also have done very well.

Plus, even if you're not quite the top dog or you happen to be some ways below you can still live comfortably. Countries like the China, US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and so on do well for themselves and are big time.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

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

I think it's you that doesn't get it tbh. If there's an outcome of a vote, the govt have to at least try to implement it. We haven't tried yet. Trying to have another vote to obtain the opposite outcome before that happens is undemocratic.

 

[daviyoung]

If we were asked for a definitive vote then the choices would've been more than a yes/no question and they would've made the referendum legally binding in court.

It was only ever advisory and it failed at that also given the fact a 48% minority of voters to 52% majority (a 2 % discrepancy) is enough to say "WE WANT TO LEAVE ENTIRELY AND FUCK EVERYTHING UP"

It was advisory, and the government took the advice and we are now leaving the EU. If the idea is that the government shouldn't or couldn't have acted on the result then that should have probably been worked out (constitutionally) beforehand.

 

[Bleepey]

I think it's you that doesn't get it tbh. If there's an outcome of a vote, the govt have to at least try to implement it. We haven't tried yet. Trying to have another vote to obtain the opposite outcome before that happens is undemocratic.

The govt hasn't tried to implement it? Are you fucking kidding me? Let's see:

http://brexitlies.com/

Take your pick at the various sourced rebuttals.

 

[tuxfool]

Iceland, Switzerland, Norway do very well. Furthermore, members that do not fully participate (opt outs) also have done very well.

Two of those are EEA and the third might as well be. Your argument is dumb.

 

[TimmmV]

I think it's you that doesn't get it tbh. If there's an outcome of a vote, the govt have to at least try to implement it. We haven't tried yet. Trying to have another vote to obtain the opposite outcome before that happens is undemocratic.

The current government are trying to implement it, they're just both incompetent and operating in the chaos created by voting to leave the EU in the first place.

"It happening" isn't a binary thing that only flips over the day the UK is actually out of the EU, it's an ongoing process that started before the referendum even took place - just look at how even the language used about Brexit has changed since then and now

 

[TatteredHat]

I think it's you that doesn't get it tbh. If there's an outcome of a vote, the govt have to at least try to implement it. We haven't tried yet. Trying to have another vote to obtain the opposite outcome before that happens is undemocratic.

You understand there is no second chance right, you can't "implement" brexit and then go "oops, nevermind" the next day if you don't like the result of said brexit. This isn't national policy.

Having said that, your government has been trying to implement it since the vote ended, they're just not very good at it.

 

[danm999]

I think it's you that doesn't get it tbh. If there's an outcome of a vote, the govt have to at least try to implement it. We haven't tried yet. Trying to have another vote to obtain the opposite outcome before that happens is undemocratic.

What is the Article 50 invocation and the current Brexit negotiations with the EU if not trying?

Would it truly be so terrible to work out the shape of a final deal with the EU and then consult the public again on whether they wanted to proceed?

 

[DarthMasta]

Two of those are EEA and the third might as well be. Your argument is dumb.

I think his argument is him trying to catch fish.

 

[travisbickle]

A democracy is supposed to be a system that's representative of the people. Going "full steam ahead" on a 52/48 vote is bullshit.

 

[Messofanego]

Leavers regretting their actions is the only solace in this Brexit hell.

 

[DarthMasta]

I don't think QuicheFontaine is wrong though. The way things are in Britain it appears there's two choices, keep going with Brexit until it's a proven success / failure, and I do mean keep going, exit the EU, or go back with the procedure and wait for public opinion to turn towards Brexit again on the reason that people didn't give it a proper chance last time.

Sometimes you truly need to bash your head against a wall to learn that bashing your head against a wall is a bad idea.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

The govt hasn't tried to implement it? Are you fucking kidding me? Let's see:

http://brexitlies.com/

Take your pick at the various sourced rebuttals.

What is this, an old geocities page?

What is the Article 50 invocation and the current Brexit negotiations with the EU if not trying?

Would it truly be so terrible to work out the shape of a final deal with the EU and then consult the public again on whether they wanted to proceed?

They're trying, i.e. they are, right now, in the process of trying. They haven't finished doing that yet. They haven't tried.

You understand there is no second chance right, you can't "implement" brexit and then go "oops, nevermind" the next day if you don't like the result of said brexit. This isn't national policy.

Having said that, your government has been trying to implement it since the vote ended, they're just not very good at it.

We voted for Brexit, we should give it a go. If it truly doesn't work out then yes, we'll have to come back cap in hand and apply to join as a new member. I would hope we don't have to do that though.

 

[tuxfool]

Sometimes you truly need to bash your head against a wall to learn that bashing your head against a wall is a bad idea.

Meanwhile those that know better are telling you that it is a bad idea for xyz reasons.

Great, that you now know that it isn't good, but you also have brain damage.

 

[danm999]

They're trying, i.e. they are, right now, in the process of trying. They haven't finished doing that yet. They haven't tried.

Hence the question; when the actual deal is worked out, why would it be a problem to ask the public again? When there's an actual tangible proposal.

 

[Zaph]

I don't think QuicheFontaine is wrong though. The way things are in Britain it appears there's two choices, keep going with Brexit until it's a proven success / failure, and I do mean keep going, exit the EU, or go back with the procedure and wait for public opinion to turn towards Brexit again on the reason that people didn't give it a proper chance last time.

Sometimes you truly need to bash your head against a wall to learn that bashing your head against a wall is a bad idea.

Yup. While I'd love this whole Brexit nonsense to go away, it needs to happen now or else we'll never hear the end of it and it'll poison every political conversation going forward.

We've shown our arse with the referendum, and there were far more wilfully ignorant people in this country than we expected - the lies and propaganda were obvious and they voted anyway. They now need to be shown the result of their actions, not told.

 

[daviyoung]

Hence the question; when the actual deal is worked out, why would it be a problem to ask the public again? When there's an actual tangible proposal.

Yes, the choices will be:

Bad deal?
No deal?

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Hence the question; when the actual deal is worked out, why would it be a problem to ask the public again? When there's an actual tangible proposal.

I've no problem with that in principle, but the practicalities of the Art. 50 process make it unworkable. One of the options (don't leave the EU) would be at the mercy of 27 other countries, so it wouldn't really be an option.

No, the government needs a free hand to negotiate, they can't make it subject to a further referendum. That's why the Lib Dems offering at the recent GE was not well received.

 

[Jackpot]

No, the government needs a free hand to negotiate, they can't make it subject to a further referendum.

You mean they need a way to avoid being held accountable for their "deal"? I imagine having to work within the constraints of coming up with a deal that benefits the public would actually be a plus.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

You mean they need a way to avoid being held accountable for their "deal"?

Eh? Of course they'll be accountable for it.

 

[Jackpot]

Eh? Of course they'll be accountable for it.

Then why is coming up with a deal that the public needs to approve of before it's implemented not giving the gov "a free hand"? What exactly is restricting them if they're going to be held accountable for it anyway?

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Then why is coming up with a deal that the public needs to approve of before it's implemented not giving the gov "a free hand"? What exactly is restricting them if they're going to be held accountable for it anyway?

This wasn't a long post, come on

I've no problem with that in principle, but the practicalities of the Art. 50 process make it unworkable. One of the options (don't leave the EU) would be at the mercy of 27 other countries, so it wouldn't really be an option.

No, the government needs a free hand to negotiate, they can't make it subject to a further referendum. That's why the Lib Dems offering at the recent GE was not well received.

Basically, announcing ahead of time that you're going to put it to another vote has a repercussive effect on the negotiations themselves.

 

[Gattsu25]

What is this, an old geocities page?

So that's it? A blithe quip about the site design without a glance at the actual content?

 

[QuicheFontaine]

So that's it? A blithe quip about the site design without a glance at the actual content?

Basically, yeah. The content of the post I was responding to was "The govt hasn't tried to implement it? Are you fucking kidding me?". I don't really think that's worth responding to at all tbh, but I did think the site looked lulzworthy, so I mentioned it.

 

[pswii60]

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.

It does go a little further than that in reality. Iceland isn't in the customs union, so they can still agree trade deals with other countries.

 

[br3wnor]

You are crazy to think the US will simply roll back Trumps damage after he leaves the office. The world is in a critical phase, shifting to renewable and with newly forming alliances and unions. The US will feel the hurt for decades to come.

It’s absolutely going to hurt us immediately, but “decades to come” is a bit of hyperbole. We’re the world’s largest economy, have the biggest military and when a competent President is in office, are generally a world leader. Not to pull ‘big swinging dick’ rank as a country, but we’re not going to be shunned by Asia and/or Europe for decades once Trump leaves office.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

Basically, yeah. The content of the post I was responding to was "The govt hasn't tried to implement it? Are you fucking kidding me?". I don't really think that's worth responding to at all tbh, but I did think the site looked lulzworthy, so I mentioned it.

So what did you think of the content of the information you read on the site?

 

[QuicheFontaine]

So what did you think of the content of the information you read on the site?

As low quality as the site design really.

 

[Jackpot]

Basically, announcing ahead of time that you're going to put it to another vote has a repercussive effect on the negotiations themselves.

Why? Your post doesn't say anything about that.

 

[DeviantBoi]

I don't live in the UK, but it was my understanding that Brexit was a mistake and that sane people felt the same way.

However, I was talking to a friend who lives in London and he thinks that it's a good thing. I was bracing for him to start talking about immigrants, but he didn't. He said this (his actual text messages):

I think it was the right thing

Europe is slowly revealing its self for what it is

That is, dictated to by Germany

All the institutions such as eu commission, foreign minister eye are appointed by germany

It's not democratic

I also had an interesting perspective living in eastern Europe for so many years and saw what the EU was doing

Basically a poor country like Hungary joins

The eu comes in and offers money to rebuild motor ways... build new airports.. infrastructure

German companies go in and do the work

The poor country then had a huge debt and people using the new roads etc have to pay tolls to use them

There's so much debt the local government sells off key industries like mines... power utilities to pay the debt

German companies buy them

Much of the output goes to Germany to make Entergy cheaper in Germany

The poor country then needs more power stations

German companies then but up farms, factories making cheap goods

All the output goes to Germany

The locals then have no choice to buy expensive German goods

It's all very incedious

Germany tried conquering eurone by force twice

It's now done it

But enough people here see it for what it is

So I say it's a good thing the UK is leaving

To me it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but I just told my friend that I hadn't heard of this argument in favor of Brexit and that I would need to read more on the subject.

How do you respond to something like this?

Is there evidence for what he is saying?