UKH

The People’s Vote march attracted a million; the Revoke Article 50 petition looks set to reach 6 million signatures later today. Meanwhile Farage’s march to save Brexit numbers its participants in the hundreds (or is it tens now?). In the light of all this, what validity does an almost 3 year old referendum result still have?

In reply to Rog Wilko:. You make an excellent point - perhaps to keep these things fresh rerun the referendum every five years.  

Your point is you know, equally valid no matter the result. 1 million is worth more than 17,4 or whatever the number was?

In reply to Rog Wilko:

I think if the referendum was done again today it would be a different result to last time. But, I can't convince myself that re-running a referendum is a sensible decision. How is everyone justifying it to themself that it is a sensible and democratic idea? I would love for it to happen and brexit to go away for ever, but I doubt that would be the case...

In reply to Rog Wilko:

It isn't invalid because the proportion of Leave voters has almost certainly changed by now. It's invalid because it was conducted illegally - see https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/14/judges-brexit-vote-eu... 

which concludes:

"These are not the findings of a government agency. These are the conclusions of the high court – and an immensely powerful court at that. One of the judges was a court of appeal judge at the time of the hearing, and the other is a court of appeal judge now. They have concluded that the regulator mismanaged the referendum. And the consequence is that Vote Leave has broken the law."

Nobody now seems to want it to be rerun, not now, not every five years, not ever; mainly since we now know so much more about the limitations of a ballot in which one of the options is virtually unspecified as to its practical consequence. What people want is for a confirmatory referendum to make sure that whatever flavour of Brexit (if any) is ultimately agreed, is sufficiently close to people's 2016 expectations as to be still worth voting for.

In reply to NottsRich:

Because basing a radical change to the fabric of our society on a 2% majority from a vague and illegally-campaigned referendum that doesn't tally with the situation as it stands is lunacy.

Simple, really.

In reply to john arran:

Presumably remain should not be on the ballot paper then?

In reply to thomasadixon:

Presumably you either didn't read, or chose to ignore, most of my post.

In reply to john arran:

Nah, I read it.  Your weaselling is very clear.  Why not just admit you want a rerun?

In reply to NottsRich:

My main issue with another referendum is parliamentary sovereignty, this caused all the problems with the first one. Because Parliament is sovereign, it was much easier to have a advisory referendum, but treat it as binding. This meant very few of the checks and balances of a binding referendum, meaning it still stands despite the industrial scale breaching of electoral law. Parliament didn’t, as claimed by Liam Fox, “contract sovereignty to the people”. Any future referendum needs to be considered very carefully.

In reply to NottsRich:

I disagree, a re-run would produce the same result, there is no reason why it wouldn't except perhaps the easing of the Syrian refugee flow. What matters is what we've learned since 2016 about the process, the planning the costs, the subliming benefits and of course the protagonists.

A re-run of 2016's in/out referendum is an a terrible idea, we need that like a hole in the head. What we now need is to choose between defined, deliverable and costed alternatives, not as happened in 2016 pitting a less than ideal austerity wracked reality against 1001 fantasies. That, if we can alight at realistic options (we have three), is a new question. There is of course no logical reason at this stage why we shouldn't as an electorate democratically choose to turn back if the reality of life outside the EU is not what we'd hoped for, our position not as we'd been lead to believe.

It should have been a two stage process from the very outset, much of this trouble we now face could have been avoided through simple expectation management. Any half-way responsible government would have ensured accountability was built in to prevent campaigners over-promising and under-delivering. Leavers and remainers alike have been miserably failed by this omission leaving the goal wide open to individuals and fringe interests who seek to hijack brexit for their own purposes in the name of 'the people'.

In an ideal world parliament should be capable of resolving this in the national interest but for a variety of reasons they aren't and the usual paralysis is unfortunately not an option, they need new information from us.

jk

In reply to thomasadixon:

Do you think that Theresa May's deal, No Deal, or some other as-yet unspecified deal is actually what the majority of people want? Do you think that any of them taken individually would be more popular than remain as an option?

In reply to thomasadixon:

Maybe because I don't want a rerun?

I want a referendum with known outcomes, one of which is Remain. And I want Remain to win it.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Some numbers on this, by the way, from the British Social Attitudes survey (Feb 2019):
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1110443949775298562

"If you had to choose between the following three options, what would be your first choice?
Remaining in the EU 55%
Leaving the EU on the basis of the deal negotiated so far 17%
Leaving the EU without any deal 27%"

You have to ask yourself why the people who are so keen on enacting the "democratically expressed will of the people" are so afraid of asking the people to clarify what their will actually is...

In reply to john arran:

So you want a vote on whether to remain in or leave the EU...but that’s not a rerun.  Right, very clear.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

I think more important were the lies told.

TBH I can't see the argument against going back to the people after knowing what deal we face.

In reply to thomasadixon:

That literally is divide and conquer.. so you end up with what 25% of the country what being the eventual option. And you have the cheek to accuse others of weaseling..

In reply to thomasadixon:

And you accuse ME of weaseling?

I want a vote on our future relationship with the EU, with one option being to remain as full members and enjoy our privileged status and hard-fought rebate, and with any other option being defined as to what it means in practice.

And you're correct about one thing: that's not a rerun.

In reply to thomasadixon:

"Should Britain remain in the EU or leave?"

"Should Britain remain in the EU, leave under Theresa May's deal, or leave without a deal?"

If you don't see the fundamental difference between these two questions - that one of them pits a single and specific option against a large range of as-yet-unknown outcomes that are defined only by being different from the first option, whereas the other asks people to choose between equally well specified options that are all known to be possible - then I struggle to believe that you're actually arguing in good faith.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Oh there is a difference, yes, one is a fair question as to whether we should remain or leave, the other is a question of whether we should remain or leave designed to get a specific result.  A slanted rerun, not exactly the same question - too much risk of the wrong answer again.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

I agree with you, leavers main concern in and abject refusal to put it to the people is that most people now want to remain in the EU. 

It appears that the democratic process stopped after the last referendum. (Is it ok to say 3 years ago now not two and a half).

In reply to thomasadixon:

How is it democratic to end up with a result that less than half the people who voted want?

In reply to thomasadixon:

No, it's designed to find out whether the Leave that people are having forced on them is actually the Leave that they thought they were voting for. Do you believe that it is?

In reply to thomasadixon:

They're the only options available to you, if you don't dry your eyes and pick one someone else will do it for you and you might not like their choice.

When you find yourself describing the prospect of a deliverable reality vs deliverable reality question as 'slanted' it's time to take a long hard look at how you talked yourself into such an utterly ridiculous position. It's for this reason alone, to address the bellyaching concerns of people like you, that I personally wouldn't object to 'no-deal' being on a three-way fairly constructed (STV or similar) balot.

jk

In reply to Roadrunner6:

You mean if we remain in the EU?

In reply to Ramblin dave:

I believe that the right question is the one that was asked - for all the very good reasons in the various reports done by the HofL prior to the vote.

No one ever gets exactly what they want, it’s not possible.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Do you think that more than half of the people want Theresa May's deal? Or no deal?

In reply to thomasadixon:

Rees-Mogg is now content to live in a  vassal state. Why on earth do you think the wider public may not have completely changed their minds?

In reply to Ramblin dave:

No to both being half, also no to remain being half of the people as well. You can’t please everyone.

Lummox - what are you talking about?

In reply to thomasadixon:

Do keep up with the Grand Wizards

In reply to thomasadixon:

I thought you said it wasn't democratic to end up with a result that less than half the people who voted want. But now apparently we have got to do a thing that less than half the people who voted want, because otherwise it wouldn't be democratic.

Would this be simpler if you just admitted that it's nothing to do with democracy, that you suspect that most of the population don't actually want the thing that you want, and that you don't want them to have a chance to express that because you want it to happen anyway?

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Nope, didn’t say that at all.

That’s not true.  I’ve given my reasons why I don’t think it’s democratic for MPs voted in promising to do one thing should do another - essentially that it goes against their word.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Manifesto commitments are dropped like confetti on a routine basis through the life of any Government, as the harsh realities come to the fore and popular soundbites are faced with the practical implications of politics and economics. For example, the Poll Tax was a central plank of the Conservative Manifesto in 1987, and was introduced in England and Wales in 1990. It was then abandoned in 1991, ditched by the same Conservative Party as introduced it, albeit with a different leader. I wonder if that scenario might be an appropriate blueprint. 

The idea that manifesto pledges are sacrosanct is nonsense. 

In reply to thomasadixon:

So what if it turns out in a hung parliament up against the deadline that the only way MPs can agree to deliver a brexit is by asking if you still want what they can deliver? This is where we're getting to whatever deal or none that we're to be offered.

jk

In reply to thomasadixon:

Unfortunately I don't expect politicians to always keep their word:  sometimes they can't eg financial reasons, the situation may change or difficulties with the promise become apparent. The general election is fought on a whole batch of promises from a party, and its impossible that most voters agree with them all. That's ostensibly why a referendum was held (actually Tory party unity! was another reason).

There is a good possibility that a majority do not want to leave now that outcomes and understanding of the situation are far more apparent than at the last referendum. Not to test this would be travesty of democracy IMHO. There is a good chance that my preferred option to remain would not win....I don't know. (Farage says that in another referendum Brexit would win again.)

FWIW I would like No Deal/May Deal/Remain with a second preference on the paper for the one with least votes, ensuring an absolute majority and avoiding much need for tactical voting. I suppose other options could be on the paper.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Yet you want what very few want... a compromise would be a soft brexit.

In reply to NottsRich:

Because so much about the original referendum was simply not democratic:

- The use of the referendum to settle an internal party issue, and not for the national interest.

- The extreme simplification of an extremely complex subject into a binary yes/no question.

- Disenfranchisement of EU citizens resident in the UK and UK citizens living in the EU (while Commonwealth citizens were able to vote!)

- A referendum conceived as advisory but interpreted as binding despite the narrowness of the result and the lack of a supermajority.

- The hysterical atmosphere of fearmongering and xenophobia that surrounded the referendum.

- The lies, sinister voter targeting and criminality of the leave campaigns.

- The lack of any sort of plan or indeed coherent vision for Brexit for the leave campaigns, allowing them to claim the benefits of remaining while pushing the opportunities of leaving.

Theresa May has followed it up by attempting to undermine Parliamentary democracy at every turn in her attempts to push her Brexit through and cling onto power.

In hindsight, I don't think there ever was a democratic mandate for this, and there certainly is not one now.

In reply to Rog Wilko: no, but if you rerun a referendum now there is no way round the fact that 17.4 million people will know they're second class citizens as if they vote for something the result is ignored.  And they will know that as they will have evidence that's the case.

You may as well go out , look at a map of who voted in/out and say there you go, you live in these aces and your vote is only worth half.

That's the sad reality - you can make arguments about information, about lying, protest votes but this referendum was a bad idea with no good result.  Go be angry at some Tory hot heads 

In reply to wbo:

Like that isn't the case now for people who live in the wrong type of safe seat or who voted remain to become completely f*cking invisible since 2016...

We have a practical problem to solve, personally I'd like to see it done democratically because I think the alternatives, parliament bottling it and forcing one or other calamity on us by default will be worse.

Leavers can make their case then make their choice, if this is the will of the people we leave. If it isn't then those left whining will be hoist high on their petard of sovereignty and democracy claims.

Let's move on from this stupidity and actually address so e of the issues blighting lives outside the gentrified bits of the SE, ideally with our economy intact and the decade of all consuming, pointless and painful horseracing we have pencilled in for the 2020s struck out.

Jk

In reply to wbo:

What if only 15 million of those 17.4 million still support Brexit? Will those 2.4 million feel like second class citizens?  Or the now 18.5 million who support remain but are being given Brexit?  How will they feel?

This game can be played all day.  Short of having the mental faculties of a Russian bot, a re-run/peoples-vote/final-decision, whatever you want to call it, seems the best option as only through that can anyone really say they are being treated like second class citizens.  What happened three years ago is largely irrelevant to public opinion today, or the options on the table today.

In reply to wbo:

They haven't been ignored. They really haven't.

Large sums of money have been spent pursuing their choice, huge amonts of energy and time have been taken up (at the expense of other decision making) trying to make sense of their wishes, and we have watched massive damage being done to the economy, reputation and social structure of the country. The suggestion that they are being ignored is part of the destructive polarising manipulation indulged in by a right wing elite.

In reply to NottsRich:

The main reason is that we now know what deal we can negotiate and some of the likely effects of no deal. Secondary to that is that all the leave campaigns have been subsequently fined for breaching electoral law and all the lies told have been unravelled. 

In reply to thomasadixon:

If one of the leave options is better than remain, it would win hands down*. I suspect you know this (like most leavers)

* edit: I'd vote for it

In reply to tehmarks:

that 2% needs to be set against the very high turnout and 67% in favour of Remain in the Real Referendum of 1975

Shown pictorially it would show the idiocy of our nation in not reading the result in 2016 properly - Noise!

In reply to Ramblin dave:

The Real fear is that the Remainers who did not vote in 2016 and assumed that Remain would win by default are now armed with more information in that they know their votes were actually needed to quash the lying campaign. One of the favourite assertions of Leavers is that they don't think opinion has changed and in this they may be correct as no one knows.  What they nare really scared of is the hidden opinion that changed - that Remainers who did not vote now know they have to vote to get what they want.

Running Scared of Democracy

In reply to NottsRich:

We vote for who we'd like to govern us for the next 4 years yet they can call another general election at anytime. Is this not the same thing?

TM has put her deal up for a vote twice (nearly 3 times) now because she didn't like the first result. Is this not the same thing?

Besides, it wouldn't be a re-run, just a list of tangible options

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Referendum result - still valid?

If you voted brexit then it is still valid.  If you voted to stay then it is not valid.

In reply to NottsRich:

Well for starters, we're now voting on what we know we're likely to get, which won't be £350m a week for the NHS!

Democracy doesn't end with one vote, at least it doesn't unless you vote for a fascist state.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Funny how Farage and his mob, were already suggesting we could have numerous votes, before the result of the referendum was announced, probably because they thought they were going to lose. But now the vote went their way, they, and you, are against another vote, hypocritical bastards!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

In reply to krikoman:

Im a hypocrite because Nigel Farage did something?  He doesn’t speak for me.

Edit - note the head of our governments comments there - “we have referendums not neverendums”.

In reply to thomasadixon:

The question in the referendum was definitely wrong and in a country which runs lots of referendums like Switzerland it would never have been allowed.   Our electoral commission screwed up really badly by either not seeing this in advance or, more likely, allowing itself to be bullied into going ahead anyway.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/take-it-from-the-swiss-the-brex...

The central problem is that one option was well defined but the other was unspecific   It's like a group of people who go and eat pizza every week having a vote on whether to eat pizza or 'something else'.    There's a small majority for 'something else' but there is no such thing as a 'something else' restaurant.  When they try and choose between actual restaurant options such as Indian and Chinese they discover that none is as popular as Pizza.

In reply to oldie:

Second preference voting is an option but it is not something we have an experience of and would need alot of careful training/explanation. In a Remain or no leave the EU referendum some people struggled to fill in the box they wanted with a cross. I know because I was at the local count.

In reply to Profanitynotsanity:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/27/donald-tusk-majority-uk-st...

Farage is confident.

I was against a second referendum tbh, but can see why the MPs want to go back to the people.

But only a huge win by remain puts it to bed for a while..

In reply to Roadrunner6:

A simple majority moves us forward. If we're lucky it gets this nonsense back out of parliament onto the street for a while so we can start addressing some of the problems we've been neglecting these past 3 (or 30) years.

jk

In reply to tehmarks:

If Brexit won fairly, I would accept it without violence. If Brexit lost, I would expect there to more of this sort of thing. Still a good idea to tempt civil unrest with another referendum?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-47723837

In reply to NottsRich:

If there genuinely is now a significant majority for Remain (as polls all suggest) and people don't get the chance to steer the country according to its democratic will simply due to the threat of violence by the losing faction, who will be the winners?

In reply to NottsRich:

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Or to translate to this situation, the subversion of democracy or due process by threats of violence just isn't right, is it?

In reply to Profanitynotsanity:

Good point. However I think preferential voting systems are successfully used in other countries and in the UK ( eg English and Welsh elected mayors).

An alternative and simpler method might be to hold successive votes, eliminating the least popular option in the first vote (used in France?).

In reply to oldie:

That could work but it needs to be well thought out, the problem is how you ask a question and when can be manipulated to get the outcome you want.

I doubt any leaver can seriously look you in the face and say the majority of the country support a hard Brexit, yet here we are days away from that.

In reply to NottsRich:

Frankly policing bellends like that is going to be the cost of maintaining our democracy for a while. It's not good but under no circumstances should we be cowed by these angry inadequates.

Jk

In reply to oldie:

In general the method is fine, in this specific case it would require the first question to be leave/remain which even as a gateway to further options is probably politically unacceptable, if the vote was remain you end the process with another that looks like a re-run rather than the new question it actually is.

Edit: sorry, misread, i though you were suggesting staged sequential questions.

Jk

In reply to NottsRich:

 Brexit is not going so solve any of the underlying problems, so your choice is possible civil unrest in a wealthy country or probable (potentially slightly slower to arrive) civil unrest in a poorer country. 

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Sadly, I saw a Tory MP say just that on Sunday: he claimed that (paraphrasing, not quoting verbatim) "everyone just wants us to get on with a no deal brexit, to avoid the uncertainty".

In reply to jkarran:

No, I think the idea is that all the options are on the initial ballot paper, and they get whittled away one by one, at each subsequent vote, until there are only two options left.

In reply to NottsRich:

If you appease the bullies and criminals on the Right they just get the right to tell others how their threats worked and got things changed.  They will get stronger while we all go along with bad things just to prevent them doing damage, to our detriment.  Isn't that like paying "Protection Money" or Danegeld in perpetuity.

The fact that members of the Government want to appease the right doesn't make it acceptable - just illustrates the calibre of government we now have, the calibre of a bent popgun at a travelling fair.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Do you actually ever read and think about the replies you get? 

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Asking someone to respect the result of the 2016 referendum is like asking someone to respect Lance Armstrong's 7 Tour De France wins.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

A true and fair analogy. 

In reply to jkarran:

Agreed. Because we are threatened by terrorists we don't give in and say "anything for a quiet life". You have to stand up to bullies - has history taught us nothing?

In reply to Rog Wilko:

What do you expect to get from bent popguns at a travelling fair?  Even the corks they fire are falling apart as they were supplied by the ERG and their friends who have no experience of munitions but have a lot of shady contacts