Belz...
Fiend God
No, but going through with a second vote does put a question mark on any democratic result. Don't like it? Ask a second time! Ask until you get the result you want. Change in leadership? Ask again!
- Status
No, but going through with a second vote does put a question mark on any democratic result. Don't like it? Ask a second time! Ask until you get the result you want. Change in leadership? Ask again!
I'm not saying the government is now obligated to leave the EU because of what was, as you say, essentially a glorified opinion poll.
I'm saying the we can't pretend like the question "Do you want to leave the EU" was asked of the people and the answer came back "No" just didn't happen.
Even in politics there are things that when said that change the landscape of the room even if they don't come with a "Now X action has to be taken" rider attached to them.
Last edited:
Wudang
BOFH
Hells teeth do we have to explain what a parliamentary democracy is again?
Essentially all I'm saying is on the most basic of levels when the government of a democracy asks the people a question in an official way then ostensibly perfectly reasonable for the people to expect their answer to that question to matter, even if there is no "If you say X we will do Y" steps specifically spelled out.
What happened here was part of the government promised to ask the question to placate a bunch of one issues voters hoping nothing would come of it and got their bluff called and now are trying to get out of it.
They did ask the question. "Do you want to be in the EU" was put on the table. No the government is not obligated to leave the EU now. No the government doesn't even have to keep the option on the table.
All I'm saying is asking a question, with the explicit purpose of getting people who's answer is "Yes" on your side, and having no idea what to do because you didn't get the "No" answer you expected to get (which is 100% obvious to everybody that's what this is) is... problematic.
What happened here was part of the government promised to ask the question to placate a bunch of one issues voters hoping nothing would come of it and got their bluff called and now are trying to get out of it.
They did ask the question. "Do you want to be in the EU" was put on the table. No the government is not obligated to leave the EU now. No the government doesn't even have to keep the option on the table.
All I'm saying is asking a question, with the explicit purpose of getting people who's answer is "Yes" on your side, and having no idea what to do because you didn't get the "No" answer you expected to get (which is 100% obvious to everybody that's what this is) is... problematic.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,116
Not with a non-binding referendum. It's right there in the title.
I really doin't think it's problematic. Especially given that it is now abundantly apparent that leaving the EU is not in any way going to be the shape the chancers promised.
Lothian
should be banned
Parliament didn't like the 2015 general election so they had another vote in 2017. Nothing unusual about parliament going back to the country for a new direction.
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
Whut? In those circumstances would I be demanding an opportunity to vote the incumbent government out of office because they went against what I wanted?
Of course I would, that's democracy
I am OK with the UK government starting procedures to leave the EU based on the referendum result, even though I disagree with it. I don't see anything undemocratic with the government saying 'Actually this is going to be a complete fustercluck, and you won't get what we promised, are you sure about this?' and having another referendum.
Maybe it's different in the UK but over here 99% of politics is coming to a compromise that neither side is happy with.
We're the country where one side wanted to use stem cells to to cure disease and another side didn't want to use stem cells because it killed fetuses so our compromise was to keep killing the fetuses but not use the stem cells to cure any diseases.
Belz...
Fiend God
Yeah but what's to stop them from asking again and again and again and again and again and again? That's why barring some extreme scenarios you usually go with the initial vote.
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
Um.. you do know they ask that question at least once every five years in the UK don't you?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
That's not really a correct inversion of the situation. If the vote had come back 53% to 47% in favour of staying in the EU, but then within 6 months the EU announced that they were planning major changes to the nature of the union that made it completely different to what we'd voted to stay in, I like to think I'd be receptive to the idea of a new referendum to decide whether we should accept the new situation. In fact, it's arguable that this should actually have been done before ratifying the Maastricht Treaty; if it had, it would probably have been favourable, and we wouldn't have had any basis for the 2016 referendum, thus avoiding all this mess.
At present, it's clear that the range of outcomes promised by the Leave campaign has no overlap, and never had any overlap, with the range of feasible outcomes. In particular, the possibility of leaving the EU with no agreement over arrangements afterwards was specifically excluded as a possibility. It's that change in circumstances that could, again arguably, justify a second referendum; if we had an agreement in place by now that everybody on the Leave side had signed up to, I don't think there would be any reasonable justification for one.
Dave
Yeah but that means the people change every 5 years, not that they keep the people in office until the people vote the way they want them to.
"Election cycle" isn't the same thing as "Keep asking until you get the answer you want."
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Except for the most recent general election, which was TM's spectacularly unsuccessful attempt to do just that.
Dave
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
You'll need to rephrase that, I can't make it mean anything in my head.
Belz...
Fiend God
What question, and how is that relevant to what I said?
You seem to be arguing that asking the "Do we Brexit?" (Yeah I'm verbing Brexit) question over and over is somehow equivalent to electing new government positions every X number of years and... it isn't.
If the situation has changed then yes.
Ireland asked about the Lisbon treaty twice, renegotiating the treaty between votes.
In this case the situation is that we can now see far more clearly exactly what leaving will entail, something which was not as clear when the original vote was taken. At least, something which the Leave campaign claimed was not as clear.
This is a case of "we've now looked at leaving, and this is the best we've come up with, are you sure?"
Belz...
Fiend God
Sure, it can happen, but as I stated earlier, and no one has addressed, if you try over and over, it eventually gives the impression that the vote doesn't matter.
So what if you make a second vote and it comes back "leave" again? Do you push on, only to ask the question again in 6 months when you realise that it's too hard?
To be clear, I'm not against the UK just deciding to remain in the EU, but either that or asking the question again just undermines the democratic process. Leaving, of course, undermines the EU. Whoever wins, Putin wins too.
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
Explain how it is different? The Brexit/ Rejoin the EU question could be on the manifesto of one or more UK political party from now until doomsday.
Belz...
Fiend God
Because the latter is actually "which people do you want in government for the next 5 years?" Once you have the answer, you only ask again once the time's expired. You don't ask 3 months later after the transition team found the workload too heavy.
- Status