In parliamentary democracies there aren't any formal barriers to having elections as often as people feel like it. It's unusual but far from unheard of for countries to have several in a year during difficult times.
There was one over who should carry out the negotiations, the result of which was that the tories lost most of their advantage.
There hasn’t been any election that is close to being about the actual leave conditions, on account of the only concrete deal being written down in spring this year.
There are now a fairly large number of MPs who are no longer aligned to the policies of their party, or who have moved party. An election should shake all of that out.
This, combined with the speaker's constitutional innovations have led to a situation where we have a government which can't govern. Again, an election should sort this (and may allow the removal of an activist speaker as well).
And yes, it will be about voting for a party which matches your preferred strategy. Tory = no deal. Libs = remain. Labour = ??? + radical socialism.
They are suggesting that an election, which currently seems likely to happen soon, will be a "proxy referendum". I. e.: that will be the decisive factor for peoples votes.
Presumably, the conversion would be "brexit party" = hard, (no deal) brexit; tory = "I have no fucking idea, but I don't like immigrants, either". LibDems = "no brexit". Labor = "soft brexit".
The recent election was an internal party election, similar to the Republican or Democratic National Congress. This is because in a general election in the UK, the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the people - they vote for a party, and the leader of that party can change at any time, which is what happened when Theresa May stepped down.
No idea if you follow British politics, but a few years ago the Cons and LibDems went into coalition, and one of the things that was meant to help was the FTPA. Under that the government cannot just call an election, it needs the support of 2/3 of parliament or a vote of no confidence.
They can sidestep that with a simple bill which just says "Notwithstanding the FTPA, there will be an election on date x", passed with a simple majority. Would need to go through the Lords though.
The FTPA was a terrible piece of legislation.
Regardless, the point is that Boris can accede to Corbyn's demands, hold an election, and still leave on Oct 31st. If he wins.
The UK doesn't have any negotiating leverage. It's May's Withdrawal Agreement, or no deal. Boris Johnson is pantomiming negotiations with the EU, but there's no basis on which to negotiate. Surely you know this?
This is true, but the UK has very little leverage to begin with even without no deal of the table. So it's the difference between a bad deal and a worse deal. That's just how it is negotiating with a major power imbalance.
In a word, yes. Would require another postponement and then followed by the election as a proxy second referendum. Which could lead to scrapping Brexit alltogether.
I wish my high school had covered parliamentary systems. So many things about it seem batshit insane. The government can expel MPs who vote against it? The prime Minister can seize power by suspending the entire parliament?
I found it interesting that while everyone says it’s a democracy and the Queen is an entirely symbolic position... she suspended parliament which happens a lot but not lately and the timing was unusual, IDK! So it seems like a Democracy With Assistance, but also some sort of Revokable Representative like you said?
The Queen has to give her permission to suspend parliament (as it is 'her' government), however it was not her decision about whether to say yes or no. She acts on the advice of her Prime Minister, and must do as they say.
But it can't be as simple as that. If a prime minister asked the Queen to suspend parliament for a year, she wouldn't approve it.
I think how it works is the Queen will always deny having had any discretion. If she ever has to reject the 'advice' of her Prime Minister she will say she has been advised that the advice was unconstitutional and therefore she had no option but to reject it.
This is a case where the UK is governed by norms, rather than laws. Charles I prorogued Parliament for 11 years. Of course when he reconvened Parliament they refused to be dismissed again and ultimately deposed him.
It's hard to believe that a one-year suspension in modern times would stand, but resolving it would be messy.
>It's hard to believe that a one-year suspension in modern times would stand, but resolving it would be messy.
It'd be a pretty much immediate constitutional crisis but I don't doubt at all that it'd end up with the head of state getting changed to an elected position. Definitely messy though which is why the tradition stuff works fine for now.
>But it can't be as simple as that. If a prime minister asked the Queen to suspend parliament for a year, she wouldn't approve it.
It is actually though. We had a similar situation in Canada a few years back where the PM prorogued parliament for an extended period of time and the Governor-General (our representative of the Crown).
The procedure for formally ratifying a bill is called Royal Assent[1].
An exerpt from the wiki article on it kind of sums up your issue
>Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign generally acts on, and in accordance with, the advice of his or her ministers. However, there is some disagreement among scholars as to whether the monarch should withhold royal assent to a bill if advised to do so by her ministers. Since these ministers most often enjoy the support of parliament and obtain the passage of bills, it is improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. Hence, in modern practice, the issue has never arisen, and royal assent has not been withheld.
So it's all a matter of tradition and stuff. Theoretically the Queen could go and put her foot down in England or in any other Commonwealth realm that she still technically rules.
That said the common consensus on what would probably happen there is that parliment would essentially immediately have a vote on tossing the queen as head of state, probably write in some elected presidential position or something to do all the stuff that the Queen or her representative used to do then go back to arguing about whatever they were before and the main consequence would be a wasted voting period and having to remove "Royal ____ of ______" from a lot of organizations.
In that case the Governor-General sought, and took, the advice of the Chief Justice.
On the Canadian example from 2008, I note the Wikipedia page says
«
It was also at the same time said by Peter H. Russell, one of those from whom Jean sought advice, that Canadians ought not regard as an automatic rubber stamp the Governor General's decision to accept Harper's advice concerning prorogation; Russell disclosed that Jean granted the prorogation on two conditions: parliament would reconvene soon and, when it did, the Cabinet would present a proposed budget, a vote on which is a confidence matter.
»
So it seems clear that in Canada, at least, it is not that simple.
There is a full quorum she can call for - the full Privy Council, over the usual three government MP's. I'm not sure in what circumstances, but it's been claimed that even asking for this would be judged to be exercising political involvement.
Parties can expel members who vote against the party; this is normal. The suspension of parliament trick was not normal, is currently subject to legal actions, and may be rendered moot by Parliament having taken control of the order paper this evening.
>Parties can expel members who vote against the party; this is normal.
If they're required to vote with the party then why are they there at all instead of a single party representative casting multiple votes? How does a party ever change its mind about anything if its members can't make their own decisions?
A free vote allows an MP to vote against their party with no consequence.
at the other extreme we have:
A three line whip, which is literally underlined three times, are votes and proceedings the government considers important. Traditionally manifesto promises and last votes on major bills. Voting against a three line whip can result in removal of the whip, ie expulsion, but traditionally even this has been rare. Parties have usually had a few MPs well known for voting against them on some issues, and managed to keep them on as MP. Throwing out 21 when you lose your very first vote is unprecedented.
Mind you, losing your very first vote as PM is unprecedented. :)
At this point, I can't figure out if I'm learning new and interesting things about how this system works .. or if they're just making it up as they go along now. And I'm British ..
The people voted for it. Just give it to them. If the outcome is bad, that's just a lesson in consequences...for everyone. Hope they vote better the next time...if you feel that it was the wrong choice.
The amount of contempt being expressed, from many sides, for democratic process is disgusting.
The argument here is that I literally don't believe anyone in this country has voted for a no deal brexit. I fully accept the result and I don't even care about remaining anymore - but leaving on WTO terms has no mandate, that's not what anyone has voted for and while the government has the responsibility to implement the will of the people it also has the responsibility to not wreck the country in the process.
This includes the government negotiating with the EU. If the government must accept any deal the EU offers (because someone dislikes No Deal being on the table) then the EU will offer the worst deal possible, and has done so (the current deal has been rejected by parliament three times).
As someone else already pointed out - a "no deal" in reality means "no deal until any deal is reached". UK cannot be on WTO terms with the EU forever, but by going on them in the first place the economy is taking a hit until something else is negotiated. And that negotiation will be exactly the same as now - backstop, immigrants, EU regulations - none of those issues disappear with a no deal. They just get delayed a little bit. It feels like a no deal is hitting your own face out of spite for the other side.
Well there's your problem! That's a vague reference. To a lawyer, it might obviously refer to the voter's decision with respect to the immediately preceding question. To the average UK voter, it might also refer to her decision that she wants blue skies, decent food, and a personal unicorn pony for everyone. It's hard to vote against unicorn ponies.
[EDIT:] Apparently parent just pointlessly made up something, to which I credulously responded. Sorry for the distraction.
The information leaflet provided by the government contained this statement. The ballot paper itself only provides the question (as is the nature of ballot papers). I suspect you probably know that.
The contents of the leaflet are irrelevant, the leaflet was not provided at the time of voting and no such statement was on the ballot. It holds exactly as much legal weight as "£350 million for the NHS" printed on the side of the bus. If you took the government to court over it the court would most likely decide that information printed on leaflets have no legal standing, even if they are distributed by the government.
I'm not disputing the number, I'm saying that writing "[by leaving the European Union] let's give £350m to the NHS instead" on a side of a bus is not a legally binding promise. It's just a slogan, nothing more.
I'm not sure what we're arguing about at this point. The referendum was advisory, that's the legal status of any decision made in it - the government chose to implement the result, but it was at full liberty not to as well. That's irrelevant at this point because things didn't go down that path 3 years ago.
If we are going to go by what the people thought, the people didn't think they were going to get a no-deal Brexit. Leave told a whole bunch of lies. Now that the reality of no-deal Brexit has set in, the position has proven unpopular.
All I am saying is that now that we know that is the reality on offer, that the British people should get to vote on it. Since no-deal Brexit will lose at the ballot box, I can understand why its supporters want to avoid such a vote.
There was, and is, no legal obligation on a UK government to take note of a referendum. They're just a big opinion poll, legally speaking. In some ways that's a big part of the problem.
Other countries, e.g. Switzerland, that use referenda have rules about super-majorities, campaigning and spending, when and if they will become law and so on. Ensures that you don't get vague hand-wavy referendum that is campaigned as "we'll get a deal easily" morphing into WTO terms hard brexit some painful time later.
Point being there is no moral mandate on such a thin margin of the minority who voted when there were laws broken in the campaign finance, the claims made and so forth.
At least elections have the veneer of election law behind them. Referendum nations have a similar veneer behind referenda - to decide whether it was fairly arrived at, etc. Switzerland not long threw out a result because the electorate had been given some sort of misleading information in the campaign.
Perhaps so, but I think it would be better to have had those parameters established beforehand, and where the limits of what was considered fair under law were. Maybe people could consider it settled even if they didn't like the result
Anything would be better than how we did do it, really. :)
Either you (literally) didn't mean "literally", or you're being wilfully ignorant. There's a significant minority who are more than happy with the idea of a no-deal Brexit and who voted for it with the understanding that may be the outcome.
As far as the last part of the final sentence goes, one could also make a similar argument that the remain side should have shown some responsibility with regards to not utterly destroying the negotiating position in order to purposefully sabotage Brexit such that it becomes unsalvageable. But hey, them's the breaks and here we are.
I don't know what happened to make people so sure that the other side is always either evil or was tricked into its position, but it seems to be the way these days. Sometimes people just disagree. Sometimes they even have perfectly understandable reasons for feeling that way. We would all do well to presume our personal objective "rightness" a little less often in this day and age.
>>Either you (literally) didn't mean "literally", or you're being wilfully ignorant.
I do literally mean literally. Maybe I am wilfully ignorant then.
>> There's a significant minority who are more than happy with the idea of a no-deal Brexit and who voted for it with the understanding that may be the outcome.
See, I just don't believe that part. I don't believe that 3 years ago in 2016 there was any significant(or even greater than >1000) number of people who understood that if nothing is negotiated with the EU the UK will leave on WTO terms, who fully understood what that meant for the British trade position and who were still happy to proceed. Sure there is a lot of people who say that nowadays, but I just don't believe there was enough information about this 3 years ago for anyone but the most politically and economically engaged people to make such a choice and realistically be happy with a no-deal.
>>As far as the last part of the final sentence goes, one could also make a similar argument that the remain side should have shown some responsibility with regards to not utterly destroying the negotiating position in order to purposefully sabotage Brexit such that it becomes unsalvageable.
That just sounds like saying that half of the British society should have just shut up and said nothing for the 3 years while the government was negotiating. That's impossible in a democracy - not only people should be able to voice their opinions and displeasure with what is happening, they should also be able to change their minds about decisions already taken.
The text of the 2016 referendum was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" No mention of deal or no-deal.
Logically speaking, every single person who voted to leave in 2016 either voted for no-deal as a possible mode of leaving or misunderstood the text of the referendum.
The problem with this argument is that it is built on an assumption that leave means "leave by any means". UK could also leave by starting a war with France, and yet I suspect that wouldn't be an acceptable solution either. And this is not a programming language, if-this-then-that doesn't apply here - to say that logically someone voting leave must have accepted the possiblity of a no-deal brexit is more then naive, there is plenty of documented cases where people voted leave just to say fuck you to the government because they were tired of austerity and being ignored for decades, not because they have any strong feelings either way towards the European Union. Obviously I'm not saying that it's everyone who voted leave, but we cannot apply the "logically if they did this then it means that" here.
Not a UK resident, US based but watching from afar.
My understanding is the vote was
It was specifically non-binding
Was not a super majority
There was no definition of what was being proposed (Brexit means brexit...)
In my US voting, at state level and federal, I vote for specific actions and languages. Be it a person to a position, or specific language to be changed/added/removed in a law. There was no voter pamphlet with this, no definition, etc etc etc.
Not sure I see that as a democratic process, more a survey.
You've posted 4 comments in this thread already. They're the exact same responses I see 20 times in every reddit thread, but in this case they're all from the same person, so maybe some actual discussion can happen.
It seems self-evident to me that a set of people exists that wants Brexit with a "good" deal, but does not want "no-deal" Brexit. Which way do you think those people voted on the original non-binding referendum? Which way do you think those people would vote on a second referendum, with the actual choice between "no-deal" and "remain"?
It is also self-evident that the same people okay with "no-deal" Brexit voted "Leave" on the original referendum. Suppose a second referendum is held, and "Remain" wins because the "good-deal" Brexiters above are no longer voting with these "no-deal" Brexiters. Weren't the "no-deal" Brexiters a minority the whole time? Why should this minority get what they want, at the expense of the majority? That's the current trajectory.
Some people's version of "the democratic process" is equivalent to "The people have spoken and, having spoken, must never speak again". That is indeed disgusting, as is the claim that pushback against such a ridiculous and anti-democratic idea is "contempt ... for democratic process".
"If the outcome is bad, that's just a lesson in consequences..."
This patronizing authoritarian attitude that entire nations must be punished when some of their citizens make errors in judgment is itself an example of terrible judgment but comes without consequences.
I think entire nations must be punished when the ruling class decides that they aren't representatives of the peoples' will. That's why I live in a country where people fought and died for that privilege of being a representative democracy.
I think it's patronizing and authoritarian to shove pointless referendums in front of your peoples' face that you have absolutely zero intention of implementing if they vote the way you didn't expect.
I think it's patronizing and authoritarian to tell those people that they don't know what's good for them.
I think it's patronizing and authoritarian to tell them that they didn't really mean the terms that they voted for, as if they aren't capable of drawing conclusions from their actions and dealing with the consequences.
In reality, if the UK does not have a trade deal in place by the time it leaves the EU, it will still need to get one later and it will still contain the same requirements on respecting existing commitments to the the Irish Border. And this also happens to be a condition of getting a US trade deal through.
No Deal Brexit, is in fact, No Deal until utterly desperate for Any Deal.
The idea that the UK could just not have to ever agree to a trade deal with the EU is the purest of fantasies, and the idea that leaving first and kicking the can down the road will strengthen the UK's negotiating position is almost as delusional.
Conversely, the EU wishes to continue selling its goods to the UK - dairy, cars, prosecco, and everything else. This is a bilateral trade agreement. They want a deal. But if the UK can't walk away, the EU give us the worst deal possible as it is in the EU's interest to do so.
The EU can much more easily absorb the loss, and has more reason to care about the terms of the deal in terms of it matching the trade agreements with other partners of various levels. It also has more to lose if it gives the UK a sweetheart deal. Not a great bargaining position, really.
The hitch with that is that the Conservative government doesn't have a majority without the support of the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, and the DUP's central, defining issue is that Northern Ireland is and should always remain part of the UK. So the government can't yield an inch on Ireland, because the minute they do the DUP will withdraw its support and the government will promptly collapse.
They already collapsed (self-inflicted). Thanks to today's resignation and withdrawing the whip from all tonight's rebels, the government is now 20 votes short of a majority.
Well if I were Labour lead, and seeing as the idiotic Fixed Term Parliament Act requires a super-majority to end a term early, I'd try and keep the impotent Johnson in office as long as possible. Three more years of a government unable to do anything should tear the Tories apart nicely, and perhaps see them unelectable for 30+ years.
If they can't get a super-majority, I think they might be stuck with waiting until term, absurd and broken though that is.
The Lib Dems weren't thinking at all when they pushed for fixed terms.
To unify Northern Ireland with the Republic, I think there are a few people that have to be asked first.
I mean, it would be somewhat in character for the UK to attempt to achieve that unilaterally and with no consultation, but I think that to try and just 'give it back' as a solution to Brexit is, while no doubt well intentioned, still representing a bit of a colonial point of view.
Well, you can go tell the Irish that their constitution is wrong, if you like.
"It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island."
It seems like it's well past time for a 2nd referendum. And I don't buy this hogwash about undercutting democracy and the people having spoken.
If my partner and I decide together to buy a car, and then find out later that we can only get financing at 20%, then it is no way disingenuous to have another talk about whether we really need a new car. On the contrary, I would be quite peeved if my partner went ahead and blithely signed a 20% loan for a car without further discussion, and defended that decision by saying, "We already talked about this."
> On the contrary, I would be quite peeved if my partner went ahead and signed a 20% loan for a car without soliciting further discussion, and defended that decision by saying, "We already talked about this, and 20% is all the dealer was willing to offer."
Losing an election does not equate to not having a say.
None of that means I can't have a second say after two years and a better understanding of the repercussions. In HN speak I need to evaluate my trajectory and either pivot our stay the course. Just not allowing myself that freedom is just bad policy film a personal, business, or political perspective. People can and sometimes should have a chance to change their minds.
A political system has to survive the reality that some voters are stupid. Which voters are stupid is surely a point of contention, but in the climate where everyone is convinced of their righteousness, everyone thinks someone is stupid.
You cannot helicopter parent your voting populace. Otherwise votes just don't matter. If you feel that way, don't give people the right to vote in the first place.
Your political system has to provide an environment where the government (as in the will of the people) can safely fail at doing something important.
IMO, regardless of what is correct, a handful of insane politicians in the UK played a stupid game thinking they could avert a minor crisis and instead created a catastrophe. Those responsible should be pilloried and everyone should learn a great lesson from this. That said, I think that if the UK wants to remain intact, it is forced to take it on the chin and follow through with this.
Afterwards, the country can unite and pick up the pieces and fix it. The EU should also realize the opportunity it has here and be lenient.
The problem is that France and Germany can't stand the threat to their Union and will throw their weight around like the bullies they are. The Scandinavians will be convinced as always that they're just better than everyone else and let the UK suffer. The smaller EU countries simultaneously don't give a shit and also await the conclusion of this so they can see which way the wind blows.
I think if it goes up for referendum again, we'll actually see only 60% of the voter turnout of the last one. Could still go either way. In either case, the UK won't survive it. The only way forward is through.
No, I disagree completely. There's nothing wrong with having a chance to change your mind once you better understand what's at stake. This business of I chose two years ago and now I'm stuck is like if you chose a career and could never change it, or got married and could never get divorced. This is not helicopter parenting, it's just part of growing as a human being.
It's better to leave yourself open to having a different/better thought in the future. Incidentally that's my biggest problem with tattoos.
People don't understand any more about the deal (or lack of one) than they did before they voted. They've just been subjected to endless Y2K-scale hype for an extended period of time.
That's wrong and also an unnecessarily patronizing view of the intelligence of the people of the UK. People are smarter and have a better ability to learn complex topics than they get credit for. It's more a problem of garbage in garbage out.
Winning an advisory referendum with a 52% majority, doesn't always equate to parliament having to take the advice.
edit - people can disagree with me all they like, however I am not just making this up, so disagreeing with me will not make this go away.
Here is the 'Referendums in the United Kingdom - Constitution Committee', from the UK House of Lords;
'223. We recognise that because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of public opinion.'
Non sequitur that has nothing to do with what's being discussed. Notably, a new referundum is about letting those who voted for the winner getting a greater say.
Exactly. The example I like to give is: imagine if the government held a referendum asking "do you want to pay less taxes, yes or no?". Yes wins(who wouldn't want to pay less taxes, right?), And then 3 years later the government says "ok, we'll slash taxes by 90% but we'll close the NHS and all public schools. You can go to the public sector for either, so it's all good. And remember, you voted yes, so holding another referendum to see if that's definitely what you want would be undemocratic now!".
But in this example, 'not having a car' means that we can't get to our job on time, so we lose income.
Likewise, 'not being in the EU' means spending millions, possibly billions of pounds on lawyers to renegotiate deals (that we already have). We've already had to borrow lawyers from the EU because we do not have the legal manpower to enact Brexit!
The worst thing about this is that the position the UK will be in, means that it does not have a good standpoint for bargaining.
If the US loses trade deals with the UK, that's not terrible because the US still has trade deals with hundreds of other countries. If the UK loses trade deals with the US, that's catastrophic and puts us in a worse position for every other trade deal after that.
The entire reason why Asia sees Brexit as "an oppotunity"[1][2] is because Britain will be on the back foot for all trade deals, they can negotiate harder and we are in a compromising position.
And the salesperson loses income. Which is a pity as you buy cars pretty regularly.
It's almost like, I don't know, a bilateral trade agreement.
The UK is using lawyers from Europe, not from the EU, which is a political body. It's a very important distinction: the UK is withdrawing from a body where unelected people write laws, not making a xenophobic statement, despite people's attempts to frame it that way.
> not making a xenophobic statement, despite people's attempts to frame it that way.
Please explain why you think Joe Cox was murdered. Please explain why you think so many UKIP members are outed racists[0][1][2][3][4] (Notably, even Farage left UKIP because of the extremism). Please explain what you think the British National Front stands for.
MEPs don't write laws. You would know this with the bare minimum of research into the topic.
(List of random bad things)
I'll let you explain how those things are relevant. There will always be racists and crazy people. Mass immigration may create more of them if that's what you wish.
You also write about racism yet link to an article about Islam. Islam isn't a race, you can read more about it using an internet search engine.
> I'll let you explain how those things are relevant
I stated their relevance above.
> There will always be racists and crazy people.
Please explain why there has been a noticable increase in 'crazy people' and fascist ideologies in the public eye since the introduction of brexit.
> Mass immigration may create more of them if that's what you wish.
[citation needed]
> You also write about racism yet link to an article about Islam. Islam isn't a race, you can read more about it using an internet search engine.
You obviously haven't done the bare minimum of reading on why Islamaphobia is deeply related to racism and in most forms consititutes racism and systemic bias. There are some good overviews of the relationship between islamaphobia and racism in the following links:
Is it going to be another yes/no vote? If so, why not have a third, fourth, and fifth referendum, until you get the result you want?
Is it going to be a 'Deal/No deal/No', pick one vote? Why are you subdividing the "Yes" option, then? Why not subdivide the "No" option, too?
Is it going to be a two question vote, with 'Yes/No', and 'If Yes wins, Deal' and 'If Yes wins, no Deal'? I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that you are not going to like the outcome of that one, either.
One thing I have trouble with understanding that in a normal democratic system all of us (I hope) reasonably expect that democracy and elections are a continuous process, a repeated game (I'd say without this repetition, we're not really talking about a democracy any more). I might vote for a certain party now hoping that they implement what they promise, or at least a substantial part of it that satisfies me as a voter.
They might also not, however. Sometimes voters get disappointed, change their ideas, viewpoints, or their personal life simply changes. No matter, the populace as a whole gets a chance to vote in new people and parties next time around. It's exactly this willingness to change one's viewpoint or political orientation which embodies the responsibility voters carry to maintain this democratic process.
Why is this referendum that fundamentally different? A lot of things have changed, a lot of issues have occurred. I also don't see why subdividing the options would be that harmful. Otherwise, following your reasoning, a two-party system would also be the best system in any democratic country (either this person, or that other fellow).
The reason repeating referendum questions rubs people the wrong way is because you're changing the rules under them.
In a democracy, we know that an election will take place every 4 years/5 years/whenever the government fails a vote of confidence. Those are the rules, we vote for people with that expectation. (I also believe that representative democracy is rubbish, but that's neither here nor there.)
In a referendum, you are asked a question. Should Brexit happen, or not. Not 'Should Brexit happen, oh, and if we don't like the outcome, should we have another referendum?'
I supposed that technically, nothing about posing a referendum question precludes another referendum from taking place, before the first referendum is enacted into law. But can you imagine if, when we had an election, if the government didn't like the result, they'd just delay transitioning power to the winners, and would instead host another election? And another one? And another one, until they win?
It's also not clear that in the past three years, a single person living on the British Isles has changed their opinion on the matter of whether or not Brexit should actually happen.
"The reason repeating referendum questions rubs people the wrong way is because you're changing the rules under them."
No rules are being changed, and "people" is obviously too broad here.
"In a referendum, you are asked a question. Should Brexit happen, or not. Not 'Should Brexit happen, oh, and if we don't like the outcome, should we have another referendum?'"
Who is "we" here? The folks who want a new referendum are those who regret the outcome of the first one for various reasons, including being lied to.
"if the government didn't like the result, they'd just delay transitioning power to the winners, and would instead host another election? And another one? And another one, until they win?"
It's not "the government" who doesn't like the result. This framing is invalid, and frequently intentionally so.
"It's also not clear that in the past three years, a single person living on the British Isles has changed their opinion on the matter of whether or not Brexit should actually happen."
It is extremely clear that many have. If not, there wouldn't be so much pushback against another referendum.
> A lot of things have changed, a lot of issues have occurred.
Have they?
The problem with this vision of a continuous process is an obvious one. The people (Parliament) who have both the power to call a referendum and to delay Brexit overwhelmingly support remain. There's nothing stopping them from delaying and holding referendums until they get the answer they want. Virtually none have made any effort to design any kind of a Brexit (other than May, who really came back with the most obvious and possible plan that anyone would have expected her to), which looks like they're planning to fail.
That Parliament is trying every possible way to cancel doing something they didn't want to do in the first place seems utterly unsurprising.
Britain had a bit of a sweetheart deal in the EU, anyway, it's no wonder that they aren't willing to give them an even better deal in some sort of half-exit.
Hogwash? I sure the Confederates States considered the 13th amendment to be 'hogwash' as well.
One doesn't get to simply disannul a legally binding election result due to disagreement, or one's ignorance of the 'interest rate'. That's how civil wars get started.
Besides, what kind of fool purchases a car without knowing the financing details?
It makes me think of Prohibition, in the US. We voted for it, then a while later we voted against it because we realized it was a bad idea. Nothing wrong with that. Having a second vote as a "wait, should we really do this?" seems fine to me.
Why should they be disenfranchised for a long time when they have to face the consequences for much of their lifetime, unlikely the very old?
Not to mention that there is no Brexit in heaven or hell, so the votes of the deceased shouldn't haunt people from their graves.
>And you can argue that the facts on the ground have changed, but the powers offering the referendum are the ones changing the facts
You mean like the 350 million pounds a year for NHS lie? Or the complete failure of the Brexiteers to offer a decent solution to the Irish border mess? How are those remainer's fault again?
What about the fact that the courts have found that the Brexit campaign violated campaign laws, and the reason a new referendum won't be forced is that the vote was non-binding?
Sounds like Brexiteers are actually afraid of democracy.
Well can't we argue that the referendum was a flawed idea to begin with?
As commented above, it's like asking the voting public "Do you want lower taxes, yes or no?" That depends on an awful lot! How much lower? How is the decrease in revenue going to be handled? Will there be cuts? If so to what? Will there be a debt increase? Etc...
Do we want political decisions of this level of importance and complexity to be made through a process of vague referendums? Seems like madness to me.
Holding a vote on a specific course of action when all other methods of deciding have failed is not "repeating until you get the right answer". It's not like the result had been ignored, it's dominated the political world for years now.
There was a vote, we've spent the last 3 years dealing with it and the result (the deal) was roundly rejected. "Ok, what now?" Is not an unreasonable question to ask people.
A second referendum would not solve anything. The original referendum should not have been called by PM Cameron. The core issue is one of national English identity. Scotland has its own Scottish nationalist party. Wales has its own nationalist party. Northern Ireland has two nationalist parties for good measure. But English nationalists have had to take cover in the 'broad church' of the Conservative and Unionist Party, to give it its full title. The trouble is that the English nationalists have always chafed under what they see as the heavy yoke of EU regulations. The 'one nation Tories' / Unionists consider keeping the UK together as an important ideal. The two factions have been fighting within the party for decades. It has now come to a head. PM Johnson is going for a break with the EU 'do or die'. Scotland and NI did not have a majority for leaving however.
It's a mess. It should not have happened. The UK is not Switzerland, it is a representative democracy, where Parliament is sovereign.
As an unintended consequence the UK could break up in the coming years.
Europe has long been the Conservative Party's kryptonite. I am almost surprised it took this long for the referendum to break them up, but you now have Ken Clarke kicked out of the Conservative party, along with people like Nicolas Soames, Churchill's grandson.
Ken Clarke has also been making statements that he would be willing to back Corbyn in a unity government.
We are in very strange political waters right now. But one thing that seems clear is that the Conservative and Unionist Party seems to be in rather deep existential trouble.
The original referendum in the 70s passed with 2/3rds vote, but they did not vote on what is today the modern EU. That occurred via feature creep. Your national identity and sovereignty should not be done in by feature creep.
The fact that the last referendum was so close should put increasing EU engagement at full stop to the feature creep. A big change should require a super majority vote to proceed, not a series of creeping measures over time.
Yeah when you frame it that way, it's one thing. However, what if two people agree to buy the car given all the available information. Then, one person changes their mind and the other doesn't? Person A keeps saying, "well, let's decide later" and keeps kicking the can down the road. Is that fair to person B, who originally had an agreement and never not wanted the car?
But here you're taking the analogy to making a financial decision within a domestic partnership and stretching it well past the breaking point.
Let's keep people A and B, but also add people C through CZZZZZ. And now we no longer need to frame it as an intractable argument between two people; we can recast it as an opportunity to re-survey all these people's opinion in order to see how everyone's opinion has changed in light of the new information that's been presented.
Not sure what relevance your metaphor has on Brexit since the voting public did not have "all the available information." Because no one could have possibly known what the terms of Brexit would be, because they would have to be negotiated.
Which was the problem with the referendum. As in the example comment above it was like asking "Do you want lower taxes?" Well that kind of depends on a lot of stuff. Are the lower taxes coming from budget cuts (if so, from what), debt increase, or what?
Your analogy also explains why Britain shouldn't be in the EU in the first place. People voted to join the EEC and then later on the terms of the agreement were changed as it morphed into the EU.
There has never been an explicit democratic mandate to cede sovereignty to the united states of Europe. The current clusterfuck is a result of that.
I guess the only good thing that could come out of this whole drama is - if any other country wants to leave the EU, they'll think twice (hopefully). At minimum there'll be a good discussion, instead of a bunch of asshats lying to the public and the public taking their vote casually.
I flatly reject the notion that it is just a matter of common sense to be a part of the EU versus not.
Giving up a little bit of sovereignty to the EU has both benefits and costs. I am merely affirming my OPs point in that actions have consequences.
I'm just suggesting that it's possible that joining the EU may come with consequences that a country won't be willing to bare. 52% of the voting populace of the UK stated as much.
I could not disagree more. The most awful result of all this would be for the people of Europe to reach the logical conclusion that if Britian can't leave then none of them can ever hope to.
Both sides are now at a point where they feel like the other is trying to stage a coup.
The remainers believe it is a coup that the PM has suspended parliament seemingly in an effort to bring the country closer to a no-deal Brexit.
The leavers believe it is a coup that there is a bill with a very real chance of passing that would make leaving without a deal illegal, therefore leading closer to not leaving the EU at all.
I'd phrase it slightly differently:
The leavers believe ignoring the results of the referendum is essentially a coup.
The remainers think respecting the results of the referendum is essentially a coup.
One thing I don't understand out of this entire process is, since it is very clear the British parliament will not allow the government to go with a no-deal, how much leverage will the Government even have in any negotiation? Since the EU knows that the UK has to have a deal, can't they get away with offering not the best deal possible, since there is no EU wide similar law binding the EU to stay away from no deal.
Obviously, no deal is bad for the UK and the EU too, but how can the UK Government negotiate with their hands tied?
> Obviously, no deal is bad for the UK and the EU too, but how can the UK Government negotiate with their hands tied?
You have succinctly described one of the devastating flaws in the Brexit idea. The UK has very little leverage and the EU has a lot of incentive to make it very painful for the UK, as a warning to other would be EU deserters.
When you put it that way it makes it sound like an organization that just strongarms others into joining it, rather than it maybe actually being in their best interest.
It's not quite that in my opinion. At the time the original union was thought to have big benefits for all members, and it did. Strongarming wasn't driving things as much as perceived mutual benefit.
But now with one of the biggest countries in the union looking to leave, it threatens the entire idea. Kinda like if the United States actually left NATO. In both cases it is in the alliance's best interests to 'keep the band together'.
Brexit was sold to voters with the promise that somehow the UK could work out a comparably favorable trade deal with the EU without having to agree to freedom of movement, EU regulations, payments to the EU, etc. If EU gave them such a deal, why should any other country abide by the requirements of the union?
Eh, I don't think EU has a lot of incentive to "make it painful" for the UK. It just has zero incentives to give UK's interests a higher priority than (the rest of) EU's interests.
That it amounts to the UK being stuck in a very painful situation is not exactly EU's fault - it's not like EU taunted the UK to leave or something.
The incentive for the EU is that, if leaving the Union turns out to be painless and consequence-free, other EU member states might decide to do it themselves, which could unravel the entire project. Whereas if it turns out to be a protracted, painful process that cripples the leaving state's economy, that example will serve to dissuade others from trying it.
I think what gp is trying to say, is that the EU does not have to make it painful for UK: it already is, de facto. Sure, it's better if the process is painful, to make probable exiters think again, but in this case it's not EU's doing: it's 100% self-inflicted.
I do hope for the British' sake that they get a deal soon.
Exactly, they can't. That's been Boris' point all along, and why he's calling for a general election tomorrow as a result of this. But rumour has it that the opposition will vote against a GE too, forcing Boris to negotiate in this circumstance. It's absolutely appalling.
"it is very clear the British parliament will not allow the government to go with a no-deal,"
That is not clear at all. No deal is the legal default. So far, no other option has received a majority in parliament, and on 3rd April, parliament voted to go back to the normal procedure where the government decides everything that is debated on. i.e. they gave up their power to actually affect anything (until today's vote).
It is not really a negotiation. It's a pick and choose for the UK, the problem is that their red lines does not correspond to any "orbital" around the EU. Budging on any of them for the EU is not an option to keep the single market intact and other systems intact.
Sure they negotiate the exit tab and such but for a deal the size with the EU a couple of tens of billions over the period it is supposed to last just gives political points when talking to the media.
This video[0] from CGP grey using a slide by the EU chief negotiator from december 2017 defining the EU "negotiation tactic" which they haven't stepped away from yet gives an overview to the issue.
”how much leverage will the Government even have in any negotiation?”
At least some of the major issues aren’t about negotiations between UK and EU, but about the UK making its mind up as to what, exactly, it wants.
For example, does the UK want a customs union with the EU? If not, there must be border controls, both in Britain’s ports and between Ireland and North Ireland.
What can be negotiated there is how exactly those border controls will work, but that, relatively, is peanuts compared to the main question.
Similarly, does the UK want to conform to EU regulations w.r.t. food safety or not? If the latter, it will have to accept tougher controls at the border. If the former, they have to accept that the EU essentially controls their food safety laws.
This the funniest stuff I have seen in Parliament. The PM lost his first vote, his majority, control of parliament and now they’ve withdrawn the whip from 21 of their own MPs. All because of two political geniuses who decided to prorogue parliament. Brilliant. ORDER!
Thanks to the demolition job performed by David Cameron, Theresa May, and finally by Boris Johnson, British society no longer believes in much of anything or takes anything seriously.
reply