Merged Now What?

[McHrozni]

There was a case to be made for that. It is pretty politically impossible now, because it wasn't then.

This might be the case if the referendum was about leaving the EU after a decade or so of negotiations, where people would know what they were buying and when it was clear the majority of the electorate has had the time to think and rethink several times over.

In other words, if it was about joining the EU, as a conclusion of a long and democratic process, this would be sufficient. But relying on a single point - closely contended with no clear victory for either side - for a decision of this magnitude can't be called democratic, or legitimate.

Different decisions need to clear different bars to pass to be called legitimate. Leaving the EU has a higher bar than, say, whether Scotland should have it's own parliament with some powers of varying taxes.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It's a basic principle of legitimacy. If the decision was made by a clear majority it could well be sacrosanct, but if the result was close, or if it was reached through dishonest means - both was the case here - then the decision can not be held sacrosanct, regardless of whether what the rules initially said.

Funny nobody mentioned anything about needing a clear majority BEFORE the result went against them then except for a few Leave loonies.

Circumstances have changed in that it became clear no one, especially not the most ardent supporters of Leave, had any clue of what kind of a relationship with the EU and the world they envisioned for UK. In other words, they had made no analysis and no planning - all of their claims are to be considered suspect. Assuming their false claims convinced 4% of the population to vote Leave instead of not going to the polls, that's already enough to make the result of referendum illegitimate.

That's the reason why I said a result of 60-40 would probably be rightfully sacrosanct. I find it hard to believe 20% were swayed by that red lie of a bus, but 4% is entirely believable. If it peeled supporters from Remain to Leave, numbers are half that, obviously.

Furthermore, it is becoming clear that some of the vote was made in protest against the establishment, not to actually leave the EU. Again, it's hard to believe this was a massive effect, but you don't need a massive effect to change a referendum this close.

What is more illegitimate, ignoring a referendum that went the "wrong" way, or holding the results of a non-binding referendum sacrosanct, even though the results were obtained through dishonest means? Both options are illegitimate to an extent, and you can't say one is significantly more legitimate than the other. Given the implications of the result, and the devastating effects this would likely have on the country, having a tad more than a 52-48 victory with 72% participation is necessary if you want to play the legitimacy card, let alone the "will of the people" card.

McHrozni

None of this is new though. The only new information we have is that Leave won. It was obvious for months that the referendum result would be close, that Leave were lying and that the electorate would vote based on their own reasons. Not one Remain voice mentioned anything about the legitimacy of the result as far as I know. And to be fair, none of the politicians have really questioned it since.

 

[Francesca R]

It would appear that David Cameron, for one, disagreed with this position.

Did he say his successor should be a (prior) leave advocate? All I recall is he did not want to do it himself.

 

[McHrozni]

Funny nobody mentioned anything about needing a clear majority BEFORE the result went against them then except for a few Leave loonies.

Nobody expected Leave to win. It's a failure on Camerons' part, one of several such failures I might add.

That doesn't actually make the immediate departure from the EU, come hell or high water, legitimate however.

None of this is new though. The only new information we have is that Leave won. It was obvious for months that the referendum result would be close, that Leave were lying and that the electorate would vote based on their own reasons. Not one Remain voice mentioned anything about the legitimacy of the result as far as I know. And to be fair, none of the politicians have really questioned it since.

It's a significant failure on behalf of the Parliament as well, primarily Tories but also Labor. They're acting as if the result was 60-40 or more for Leave, which it clearly wasn't. I did mention several times now that the UK clearly needs a general election - it's clear the Tory party was utterly unprepared to clear the mess they made, so resigning their majority to early elections is the least they could do.

Look at it this way - if the results are indeed legitimate, the victory will go to the party that will present the clearest vision for Brexit. UK will know where it is headed, and the new parliament will have a clear and democratic mandate to negotiate leaving the EU, and under which terms this should be done. Tories currently have none of that - they can either hold the stupid referendum sacrosanct and violate pretty much all of their other promises, or fulfill the rest of their manifesto and ignore the results of the referendum. Neither decision can be called legitimate.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

Yeah but since I've been saying that the identification is irrelevant, I'm still waiting for the argument that it's not.



I'm sure you brought it up because you think it's relevant. I'm asking you HOW it's relevant. I can't answer unless I know, because it wasn't phrased in a way that I can answer. Stop dancing around the issue and clarify this, please.

I'm going to stop dancing altogether, and you can address someone else in that tone, or fall silent. Have a nice day.

 

[Francesca R]

Not really. It's a different system.

Which doesn't damage the analogy it was offered as, as you (according to a post above) agree

Nicola was not appointed unopposed as you suggest. She was elected by a majority of MSPs and stood against Ruth Davidson who opposed her but wasn't able to get enough support to be the FM.

She had no opposition to be SNP leader. The MSP vote for FM was every bit as much a slam-dunk as a government with a majority voting itself into place (which they do)

 

[Francesca R]

But relying on a single point - closely contended with no clear victory for either side - for a decision of this magnitude can't be called democratic, or legitimate.

And yet it happened, with full advance knowledge/acceptance that it would if the numbers shook down as they have. Your Monday-morning quarterbacking of the outcome risks looking like sore-loserism.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Abstentions are to be counted as Remain votes?

No! But the 52% comes across so often as meaning 'half the population'.

 

[McHrozni]

And yet it happened, with full advance knowledge/acceptance that it would if the numbers shook down as they have.

As I said the Tory handling of the question has been a shining example of extremely poor leadership and contingency planning for a mess they themselves organized. If that doesn't call for a new election what does?

McHrozni

 

[Francesca R]

But the 52% comes across so often as meaning 'half the population'.

It's convenient shorthand I suppose. Eligible non-voters are deemed to have "let the others decide". Ineligible non-voters are required to let the others decide. So in theory 52% of those who didn't vote for either reason are . . . . . deemed/required to be in line with leave.

 

[ohms]

In any case any and all post-Brexit problems will be blamed on the EU's intransigence in not allowing the UK to remain in the EEA whilst opting out on free movement, adherence to EU rules, abandoning the ECHR and so on

Theresa May ditched the plan to pull out of the ECHR at the start of her campaign to be PM

I’ve set my position on the ECHR out very clearly but I also recognise that this is an issue that divides people, and the reality is there will be no Parliamentary majority for pulling out of the ECHR, so that is something I’m not going to pursue.

 

[Francesca R]

As I said the Tory handling of the question has been a shining example of extremely poor leadership and contingency planning for a mess they themselves organized.

No quarrel there.

If that doesn't call for a new election what does?

Losing a confidence vote I guess. Governments exhibit extremely poor leadership and plannning depressingly routinely.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Which doesn't damage the analogy it was offered as, as you (according to a post above) agree

She had no opposition to be SNP leader. The MSP vote for FM was every bit as much a slam-dunk as a government with a majority voting itself into place (which they do)

Yeah it didn't damage the broader point which I took to be that May was elected by the rules in place and that doesn't automatically trigger a GE and hasn't in prior cases either.

However after a campaign where we've heard that the EU is undemocratic and that it's leaders are unelected it sticks in the craw slightly that this happens immediately afterwards.

Even if it was only a token gesture I think the FM being elected by Parliament is different from the PM being appointed by Tory MPs.

 

[McHrozni]

Losing a confidence vote I guess. Governments exhibit extremely poor leadership and plannning depressingly routinely.

Given that the party campaigned for Remain, the referendum could be legitimately considered a no-confidence vote in their leadership. I'm sure Leave won quite a few votes simply due to this - possibly enough to change the result entirely.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Given that the party campaigned for Remain, the referendum could be legitimately considered a no-confidence vote in their leadership.

Bit of a stretch there I think.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Come on Susan. Do the same figures with 48%. Make the same argument with the Remain figures.

Sorry, but that's the way democracy works.

Oh, yes, I understand. I think it is deplorable that so many people did not vote at all, and as far as I can see, many of the young who wanted to remain in, and who were eligible to vote, did not take advantage of that right.

 

[Francesca R]

Given that the party campaigned for Remain

Only some of the party did. Only some of the cabinet did. The tory party was arguably more in line with the vote result than other parties.

 

[McHrozni]

It's convenient shorthand I suppose. Eligible non-voters are deemed to have "let the others decide". Ineligible non-voters are required to let the others decide. So in theory 52% of those who didn't vote for either reason are . . . . . deemed/required to be in line with leave.

This logic works, if the referendum is won by a clear majority, if the electorate has expressed their will in line with the vote on several different occasions, or if the results at least aren't unusually far-reaching. Elections are held every few years, so such shorthand results are adequate. Joining the EU is a long process that typically lasts several election cycles, so a simple yes on a referendum is sufficient to confirm what was fairly clear all along. A referendum on starting the process to join the EU - like the one Iceland had a few years ago - is sufficient to start the process or not to start it at all.
A referendum on leaving the EU is drastically different from all of those. The electorate has expressed their will once and only once, the results were very close, and the results will be extremely far-reaching. Pretending it needs to be followed because the party in power didn't factor the possibility of loosing the referendum, even though the electorate was manipulated and it will never be given a chance to reconsider, is democratic is, well, dishonest.

McHrozni

 

[Nessie]

The British public voted for The Spice Girls to have a concert in Baghdad, a research vessel to be called Boaty McBoatface and now to leave the EU.

It is time to stop the British public from making stupid decisions and let those who take their job seriously to do them on our behalf.

 

[McHrozni]

Bit of a stretch there I think.

Not really, Cameron quit due to the result. He certainly agrees with my interpretation, just not with my solution.

McHrozni