Merged Now What?

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Unless you're Jeremy Hunt and the people voting are doctors, in which case a 60% majority suddenly becomes only 40% of the people eligible to vote.

Dave

 

[Francesca R]

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.

You would conclude the same for a referendum on Scottish independence which produced a similar outcome to the EURef? (IE 52% yes to independence on 72% turnout would be dishonest?)

 

[McHrozni]

Only some of the party did. Only some of the cabinet did.

Their leader and most important elected official in the UK campaigned for Remain.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

You would conclude the same for a referendum on Scottish independence which produced a similar outcome to the EURef? (IE 52% yes to independence on 72% turnout would be dishonest?)

If the party in power in Scotland campaigned for Remain? Yes.
If the party in power in Scotland was the party that was campaigning for Scottish independence all along, then no.

These referendums don't just happen in a vacuum. The result shouldn't be judged as if they did.

McHrozni

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Oh, yes, I agree. 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.

Maybe it wasn't as bad as you thought.

I'm not sure how accurate the revised figures are, but the information in the article about how the 36% turn out estimate for young voters was calculated doesn't make that sound particularly good either.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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

I think your argument makes a lot of sense but it's too late. It's an argument that should have been made before the referendum was held. It's an argument that might actually have been made and dismissed in Cabinet for all we know.

What you can't do is change the rules after the result.

Imagine it was the other way around. Had Remain gained 52% of the vote and then Leadsom taken over the Tory Party and she had decided to call an election to campaign for Leaving the EU would you be arguing that this is the democratic approach to the result? Or would you be shouting that she should accept the result of the referendum where the people decided to stay?

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

McHrozni

Cameron may have taken it as a vote of no confidence in himself. Or he might have just decided to run away. His resignation doesn't confer any judgement on the legitimacy of his Government I don't think.

 

[Francesca R]

If the party in power in Scotland campaigned for Remain? Yes.
If the party in power in Scotland was the party that was campaigning for Scottish independence all along, then no.

The legitimacy of the result being followed should hinge on whether the party in power supported it?

Kinda selective. If you win, go for it; if you lose, don't go for it. You have no problem with that?

 

[Francesca R]

Their leader and most important elected official in the UK campaigned for Remain.

And allowed other Tory MPs including cabinet ministers to campaign as they desired.

 

[McHrozni]

I think your argument makes a lot of sense but it's too late. It's an argument that should have been made before the referendum was held. It's an argument that might actually have been made and dismissed in Cabinet for all we know.

What you can't do is change the rules after the result.

Imagine it was the other way around. Had Remain gained 52% of the vote and then Leadsom taken over the Tory Party and she had decided to call an election to campaign for Leaving the EU would you be arguing that this is the democratic approach to the result? Or would you be shouting that she should accept the result of the referendum where the people decided to stay?

I think the answer is contained within what you quoted. The Tories promised to renegotiate a deal with the EU, did so, and campaigned to Remain. A slim victory on the referendum would signal the public has accepted their leadership all along, however closely, and that would be the end of it.

Again, the referendum wasn't held on a vacuum. It should be judged as such. It's true that this should be done before the referendum, but hey, I wasn't asked about that beforehand. I'd say the same thing if it ever came up, for all it's worth.

It's not about changing the rules of the game after it's started, it acknowledging the British public voted against the referendum that will make their lives a whole lot more miserable than they probably realize. Many have stated their regret after voting, and that they would've voted differently now, had they been given another chance. It has become obvious the Leave campaign didn't have any analysis, plan or even a clue of what the new relationship with the EU would look like - presumably it will need another referendum to decide that, since it wasn't decided in this referendum, thanks again to poor Tory leadership. How is it legitimate to ignore all that?

Cameron may have taken it as a vote of no confidence in himself. Or he might have just decided to run away. His resignation doesn't confer any judgement on the legitimacy of his Government I don't think.

Maybe. It can be interpreted in either way though.

McHrozni

 

[SusanB-M1]

Maybe it wasn't as bad as you thought.

I'm not sure how accurate the revised figures are, but the information in the article about how the 36% turn out estimate for young voters was calculated doesn't make that sound particularly good either.

My incurable optimism has been more than somewhat dented recently, especially as I have not yet heard a good, sound reason for leaving the EU.

ETA: Having now read the link, it has recovered a little bit! Thank you!

 

[McHrozni]

The legitimacy of the result being followed should hinge on whether the party in power supported it?

Yes, that is one of the possibilities. Were you reading what I wrote? Or more accurately - why weren't you?

Kinda selective. If you win, go for it; if you lose, don't go for it. You have no problem with that?

Nope.

The explanation of why that is is wholly contained within this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11382105&postcount=2158

If you need explanation of my logic, please cite this post with specific questions about it.

McHrozni

 

[ceptimus]

If the party in power in Scotland campaigned for Remain? Yes.
If the party in power in Scotland was the party that was campaigning for Scottish independence all along, then no.

These referendums don't just happen in a vacuum. The result shouldn't be judged as if they did.

McHrozni

You just want to get your own way regardless. Kinda selfish of you.

When there's a competition, and the rules saying which person or team wins are established in advance, then you should accept the result.

It's pathetic to say that things have changed afterwards - of course they have and always will. If someone wins a golf tournament or boxing match or whatever, that is no guarantee that they would have done so a week later - it doesn't invalidate the result though.

Stop being such a bad loser and move on.

 

[Francesca R]

Nope.

The explanation of why that is is wholly contained within this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11382105&postcount=2158

That's word salad.

You think the following through with leaving the EU is dishonest because "the government" (well Cameron +) supported remain, but if they had supported leave it would be honest?

If the answer to that is "no" then you have yet to explain your position to me and I will disengage from that bit if you don't try better.

 

[McHrozni]

You just want to get your own way regardless. Kinda selfish of you.

When there's a competition, and the rules saying which person or team wins are established in advance, then you should accept the result.

That wasn't the case in this particular "competition". The results of the referendum aren't binding, the Parliament has the right to ignore (or veto) the result, or call for another confirmation of the result by the electorate.

If the victory was indeed legitimate Leave will win again anyway.

It's pathetic to say that things have changed afterwards - of course they have and always will. If someone wins a golf tournament or boxing match or whatever, that is no guarantee that they would have done so a week later - it doesn't invalidate the result though.

There's a reason why we've done away with trial by combat, and that reason is not that courtroom proceedings are more interesting to watch. Golf is golf, boxing is boxing, and the future of the country is the future of the country. If you can't realize that the stakes are different enough to warrant different approaches you probably shouldn't comment on it. Or go to the polls for that matter.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

That's word salad.

If you think so you may need lessons in English language. I'm not qualified to provide those.

You think the following through with leaving the EU is dishonest because "the government" (well Cameron +) supported remain, but if they had supported leave it would be honest?

You probably need aforementioned lessons. The post clearly states it would be democratic, and even why.

If the answer to that is "no" then you have yet to explain your position to me and I will disengage from that bit if you don't try better.

Seeing as how you missed my position entirely I'm not able to answer this question. Rephrase my position as described above and I'll gladly answer.

To hopefully speed things up a bit: If the only difference is honest -> democratic, my answer would be yes. The post also explains why, you might want to read it.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It's not about changing the rules of the game after it's started, it acknowledging the British public voted against the referendum that will make their lives a whole lot more miserable than they probably realize. Many have stated their regret after voting, and that they would've voted differently now, had they been given another chance. It has become obvious the Leave campaign didn't have any analysis, plan or even a clue of what the new relationship with the EU would look like - presumably it will need another referendum to decide that, since it wasn't decided in this referendum, thanks again to poor Tory leadership. How is it legitimate to ignore all that?

Well not it's pretty much exactly about changing the rules after the result.

We don't know how 'many' actually regret their choice. There have been a handful of anecdotes but no real data. And in any case that's not how votes work.

Had the referendum been held a week earlier or later the result may have been different. That's just the nature of things.

'Another referendum' to decide on the exit terms seems unlikely to be honest as I'm not sure exactly what the vote would be on. To reject the terms on offer from the EU? And then what?

 

[McHrozni]

We don't know how 'many' actually regret their choice. There have been a handful of anecdotes but no real data. And in any case that's not how votes work.

It's not, hence I'm proposing something somewhat different: a general election. If the electorate is sure about leaving the EU surely a Leave party will win.

'Another referendum' to decide on the exit terms seems unlikely to be honest as I'm not sure exactly what the vote would be on. To reject the terms on offer from the EU? And then what?

Exactly. Referendums are bad for deciding almost anything, especially as the deal is already presented, as was the case here. UK needs to decide next what kind of a deal it wants with Europe, so it could hold a referendum on whether it should stay within EEA or not. Or better yet, elect officials that have a vision on it, one better than "We can still have access" of Boris Johnson, and go for it.

Leaving the EU gives UK at least two incompatible options of how to conduct further business with the EU. One keeps essentially all the downsides of EU membership, the other carries a threat of an economic meltdown and a dissolution of the UK. Deciding between these two is paramount, and must be done before A50 is triggered, or else UK could well get the worst of both options. The referendum didn't give any preference for either option, so it didn't give a mandate on either.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It's not, hence I'm proposing something somewhat different: a general election.



Exactly. Referendums are bad for deciding almost anything, especially as the deal is already presented, as was the case here. UK needs to decide next what kind of a deal it wants with Europe, so it could hold a referendum on whether it should stay within EEA or not. Or better yet, elect officials that have a vision on it, one better than "We can still have access" of Boris Johnson, and go for it.

Leaving the EU gives UK at least two incompatible options of how to conduct further business with the EU. One keeps essentially all the downsides of EU membership, the other carries a threat of an economic meltdown and a dissolution of the UK. Deciding between these two is paramount, and must be done before A50 is triggered, or else UK could well get the worst of both options. The referendum didn't give any preference for either option, so it didn't give a mandate on either.

McHrozni

I agree with you on this but again I would say it's something that should have been done before the vote. I have been told by few Leave voices that this didn't matter. I can only therefore surmise that it doesn't actually matter to them what the result is as long as it's out. They seem relatively happy to allow Theresa May to decide.

 

[McHrozni]

I agree with you on this but again I would say it's something that should have been done before the vote.

Sure. But the fact it wasn't doesn't mean doing whatever happens now is legitimate or democratic.

I have been told by few Leave voices that this didn't matter. I can only therefore surmise that it doesn't actually matter to them what the result is as long as it's out. They seem relatively happy to allow Theresa May to decide.

I doubt these voices are representative of the electorate or good for the UK.

McHrozni

 

[Francesca R]

I think the FM being elected by Parliament is different from the PM being appointed by Tory MPs.

Perhaps but if there was a vote in the house now about Theresa May versus others I'm pretty certain she would get it.