You think you've got problems America...

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

There is much lamenting the skullduggery of the Leave campaign but consider the same in how we were conned into it:

So, if one is to honour the original desires of the great majority of the populace of the day, we should leave. Some politicians fought hard to join; it was not the prevailing sentiment of the population.

1

not secure or cited.

[zapatos]

21 hours ago, StringJunky said:

There's no equivalence because this is a one-time (supposedly) referendum about one issue that has been decided... and should be honoured.

We have multiple votes all the time. Someone tries to get a referendum passed, doesn't get passed, and they try again.

[StringJunky]

44 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

not secure or cited.

Not cited?  It's history not science. I quoted the  salient part, so no need to go there if you don't want to. I can remember being annoyed myself then, and I was 10.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

So, if one is to honour the original desires of the great majority of the populace of the day, we should leave. Some politicians fought hard to join; it was not the prevailing sentiment of the population.

If the majority still supports Brexit they would still be able to have it via another vote. 

In lieu of all that has happened to since the initial vote I think another would go smart. 

Measure twice and cut once. 

[StringJunky]

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

If the majority still supports Brexit they would still be able to have it via another vote. 

In lieu of all that has happened to since the initial vote I think another would go smart. 

Measure twice and cut once. 

I think T. May would like to go back but she at least understands the point about honouring the referendum and has expressly said so several times. Some people have principles.

[zapatos]

27 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think T. May would like to go back but she at least understands the point about honouring the referendum and has expressly said so several times. Some people have principles.

Who are the people who do not?

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Who are the people who do not?

Isn't that obvious? The ones who don't want to honour the outcome of the referendum.  It disappoints me that you even ask that question.

[Ten oz]

15 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think T. May would like to go back but she at least understands the point about honouring the referendum and has expressly said so several times. Some people have principles.

Here is the U.S. there is a common political phrase used when people advocate for something which might be against the best interest of the country in the name of respecting the law; "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" . I think marching on with policy which possible is not longer favored years later so to honor an initial vote is a suicide pact of sorts. It has been over 2yrs and having another vote is possible. It isn't as though Brexit won by wide margins. It was a close election. Moreover things have been discovered and are better understood today than during the first vote. 

I understand the concern that holding a second vote could create a precedent for redoing every close election but this is 2yrs later and unlike most elections which have cyclical schedules Brexit was a one of. So there wouldn't be a precedent set for cyclical elections and what precedent might be set for one off elections would have a multi year buffer which seem amicable to me in anyway. 

 

[zapatos]

22 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Isn't that obvious? The ones who don't want to honour the outcome of the referendum.  It disappoints me that you even ask that question.

Sorry to disappoint you. I guess I'm not as knowledgeable as you and don't yet understand. Do you think you might help me understand without the judgement?

Is it illegal to hold another referendum? Is that what makes it unprincipled?

Does the law allow not allow for asking the same question more than once? 

Would it be unprincipled to hold a referendum after Brexit to see if people would like to rejoin? Or is it that once a decision is made, it cannot be reversed?

Was there a referendum to join the EU in the first place? If so, was the referendum to leave the EU unprincipled?

As I said, we have multiple votes all at the time on the same issue. People in Congress attempt to pass or revoke the same laws over and over again. Are Right to Life believers unprincipled for not just accepting abortion?

In the US the view seems to be more that times change, and what once was a good idea may no longer be so. If the majority change their mind, how is it principled to keep going down the same path?

If we didn't ever change our minds, we'd still not have  women voting in the US. Or Britain for that matter.

Edited January 22, 2019 by zapatos

[Strange]

55 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think T. May would like to go back but she at least understands the point about honouring the referendum and has expressly said so several times. Some people have principles.

Denying democracy is not a great principle to live by.

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Does the law allow not allow for asking the same question more than once? 

The PM is going to get the MPs to vote again on her deal, despite the fact that they voted decisively against it. By the biggest margin in history.

It hardly seems to be inconceivable to hold another vote on something so important when the original result was a knife edge.

It is not unheard of to have a second general election if no party can command enough of a majority to form a government. This happened in 1910 and 1974. That is a perfect analogue of the current situation, where not policy commands a majority. 

And lets not forget that May called an early election even though "the people had spoken" two years earlier. Two years. Two years? Why does that sound so familiar.

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Sorry to disappoint you. I guess I'm not as knowledgeable as you and don't yet understand. Do you think you might help me understand without the judgement?

Is it illegal to hold another referendum? Is that what makes it unprincipled?

Does the law allow not allow for asking the same question more than once? 

Would it be unprincipled to hold a referendum after Brexit to see if people would like to rejoin? Or is it that once a decision is made, it cannot be reversed?

Was there a referendum to join the EU in the first place? If so, was the referendum to leave the EU unprincipled?

As I said, we have multiple votes all at the time on the same issue. People in Congress attempt to pass or revoke the same laws over and over again. Are Right to Life believers unprincipled for not just accepting abortion?

In the US the view seems to be more that times change, and what once was a good idea may no longer be so. If the majority change their mind, how is it principled to keep going down the same path?

I don't know the law, so I can't answer the legal questions but on having another referendum after Brexit, in principle, that's probably fine because the outcome of the first referendum was executed and sufficient time has passed.

Yes, the US system does have multiple votes but our respective systems are quite different in that respect, it seems.

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

Denying democracy is not a great principle to live by.

Yes, the democratic machine has done its job and needs to be followed through.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, the democratic machine has done its job and needs to be followed through.

I hate to invoke Godwin's law but ...

As I say, there are plenty of precedents for a near 50:50 vote being held again within a year or two.

[J.C.MacSwell]

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

Denying democracy is not a great principle to live by.

There is a reason we have constitutional Democracies. You can't allow a majority to suppress a minority on every aspect of law.

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

she at least understands the point about honouring the referendum

What does it mean to "honour" a referendum when enough people have subsequently changed their minds to mean that the majority now want to remain?
It's like honouring the decision to keep slaves.
The point of a referendum is to find out the will of the people.
That will has (at least very probably) changed.
We need a 2nd (strictly, a 3rd- the 1st was in the 70s)
 

Edited January 22, 2019 by John Cuthber

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

I hate to invoke Godwin's law but ...

As I say, there are plenty of precedents for a near 50:50 vote being held again within a year or two.

We'll have to see, won't we? Principles and reality are often two different things.

Just now, John Cuthber said:

What does it mean to "honour" a referendum when enough people have subsequently changed their minds to mean that the majority now want to remain?
It's like honouring the decision to keep slaves.

 What shall we have: a best of 3?

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There is a reason we have constitutional Democracies. You can't allow a majority to suppress a minority on every aspect of law.

How does this apply to Brexit? 

[John Cuthber]

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There is a reason we have constitutional Democracies. You can't allow a majority to suppress a minority on every aspect of law.

It would be really useful to have a 2nd (or 3rd) referendum to find out what the majority actually is.

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There is a reason we have constitutional Democracies. You can't allow a majority to suppress a minority on every aspect of law.

And that is a good point. A democracy is guided by the majority but must also support the minority. You can't just ignore the wishes of 50% of the population because 50% voted for something else. (And, of course, it was less than 40%.)

8 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

The point of a referendum is to find out the will of the people.
That will has (at least very probably) changed.

And if it hasn't changed, then those who are opposed to a referendum on the deal won't have anything to worry about...

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

We'll have to see, won't we? Principles and reality are often two different things.

Well, I gave you examples of reality. In cases where a 50:50 vote meant that parliament was unable to govern (as now) then it is normal to have another vote.

You can argue that principle trumps reality, but that is not very rational.

10 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

What shall we have: a best of 3?

IT IS NOT THE SAME QUESTION!

Sheesh.

Come on, you are smart guy. No one is suggesting we run the same referendum again. No one. So why come up with silly arguments like this?

 

 

[John Cuthber]

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

I hate to invoke Godwin's law but ...

As I say, there are plenty of precedents for a near 50:50 vote being held again within a year or two.

Parliament is not trying to do that. They may be trying to assert the will of the people and overturn the government which seems obsessed with getting a Brexit, regardless of what the people may now want.

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

IT IS NOT THE SAME QUESTION!

Sheesh.

Come on, you are smart guy. No one is suggesting we run the same referendom again. No one. So why come up with silly arguments like this?

 

 

Your sarcasm detector's not working.  

[Strange]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

Parliament is not trying to do that. They may be trying to assert the will of the people and overturn the government which seems obsessed with getting a Brexit, regardless of what the people may now want.

I think parliament is trying to stop the government (and, particularly, the PM) from doing that. Parliament as a whole seems more willing to consider alternatives. But it has the problem that it is able to rejects lots of options but not say what it wants. (That is partly a procedural problem, in that parliamentary processes do not provide a mechanism to extract a preference from parliament.)

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Your sarcasm detector's not working.  

So you have invoked Poe's law in response to my Godwin? That's not in the rules!  

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

I think parliament is trying to stop the government (and, particularly, the PM) from doing that. Parliament as a whole seems more willing to consider alternatives. But it has the problem that it is able to rejects lots of options but not say what it wants. (That is partly a procedural problem, in that parliamentary processes do not provide a mechanism to extract a preference from parliament.)

So you have invoked Poe's law in response to my Godwin? That's not in the rules!  

Guilty, Your Honour.

[J.C.MacSwell]

36 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

How does this apply to Brexit? 

It is quite common to require a supermajority for referendums on questions of constitutional amendments and sometimes other laws. 

Even one with a threshold as low as 55% would have changed the results of this one had it been in place. It adds a stabilizing effect. If this one had say reached 55% and you needed 55% the other way you would at least need significant changes in the voters positions to suggest holding another referendum.

Edited January 22, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It is quite common to require a supermajority for referendums on questions of constitutional amendments and sometimes other laws. Even one with a threshold as low as 55% would have changed the results of this one had it been in place. It adds a stabilizing effect.

And you know what is so crazy? There was an amendment to the original referendum bill to require a supermajority, but this was rejected by the government because the referendum was not binding. You could not make up the levels of fractal idiocy this whole process has involved. It is not surprising it has ended up a total omnishambles.

[StringJunky]

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

And you know what is so crazy? There was an amendment to the original referendum bill to require a supermajority, but this was rejected by the government because the referendum was not binding. You could not make up the levels of fractal idiocy this whole process has involved. It is not surprising it has ended up a total omnishambles.

It's a shame that wasn't specified, and also, very short-sighted to think it wasn't going to be binding, given the depth of feeling on both sides.