Hilary Clinton says immigration is the problem.

Is Brexit a rightwing populist thing? Is Clinton right? — frank

According to this, for 40% controlling immigration was the most important reason.

So if the concern about immigration didn't exist, would the British have voted to stay?

Dunno.

But how do you think you can justify a second people's vote (which is what it would be)? That would undermine the first one that we had back in 2016, and betray all of those 17.4 million people who voted to leave, — S

It's pretty clear that the complexities and complications of Brexit were not foregrounded enough by the overly complacent and disparate Remain campaign. That's their fault, but added to that, the Leave campaign has been shown to have lied and cheated, and in the end only won by a slim margin. So, there's a possibility that some who voted did so on the basis of incomplete or false information, and there might be enough who realize that now and have changed their minds to call the result into question. If that is the case, a second referendum will overturn the first and reverse the decision fairly and squarely. If it's not, it won't. And far from being betrayed, those of the 17.4 million who voted to leave and now realize they made a mistake will have a chance to rectify it. Just as if you buy a product and realize it doesn't function as advertised, you generally have a right to change your mind, if you vote for a change of policy in a referendum and there's a reasonable case to be made that you voted on the basis of false or incomplete information, you should also be given a chance to change your mind. And in a free and fair referendum, which involves a chance to not change your mind too, I don't see what's unethical. So, turning the tables, what's your justification for denying those who think they have made a terrible mistake in voting for Brexit a chance to rectify it (given that those who don't think they did have every opportunity to repeat their vote)?

you can't just keep rerunning the referendum until you get the result that you want. — S

The charge that the referendum is being re-run until the result required is achieved is weak on two counts. One, if a majority continue to oppose remaining, it doesn't matter how many times the referendum is re-run, it will always fail. Two, in practice, it would be almost impossible for any government to propose a quick third referendum given both that the justifications for the second won't apply with the same force and there is no time for it. You fall (or glide if you're lucky) off the cliff at the end of next March and there can be no simple glide back on. A second referendum is justified by the stark, imminent and in many ways unexpected threat of a no-deal scenario in a way further referendums can't be. Peak information and opportunity is now.

Are you saying the global capitalist system should be democratised? — Evil

Well just as it is not the system of nation states, but each nation that should/could be democratised, so each global corporation needs - and I'm not sure that democracy is the right word - accountability of some sort.

What I see is that the function and power of national government is migrating to corporations - security firms, infrastructure firms - G4S, Amazon, the big finance companies, energy companies, Facebook, armament companies, and so on. So what government, and whether it is the sovereign nation or the enlarged trading block ceases to matter very much, because our lives are mainly ruled by corporate powers, which at the moment find that their interests lie in fomenting division and conflict, which serves to secure their position by dividing the opposition. Democracy is a restraint on the power of government, and we need a restraint on the power of corporations now, because that's where the power is; government is no longer in charge.

Haven’t the EU said that there’s nothing left to negotiate? Unless TM abandons her red lines, e.g an end to freedom of movement, this is the only deal on the table. — Michael

Yes, they've said statements like that, and I've acknowledged that they've said statements like that. But this is politics. It suits both May's and the EU's agenda to say that. But what other options have they got? It won't get through parliament and a no deal is unthinkable on both sides of the negotiating table, again, in spite of all of the hard talk. So that leaves this as the only viable option. And I don't think that there's a chance in hell that May will opt for a second referendum whilst she still clings to power. Under Corbyn, possibly, but Labour would have to get into power first.

Anyway, I heard that May had already compromised at least some of her red lines. That's what politicians are saying in the media.

Is the fall of the nation state the reason for the resurgence in nationalism?

which at the moment find that their interests lie in fomenting division and conflict, which serves to secure their position by dividing the opposition. — unenlightened

This is the nature of capitalism right?

Some state/local governments in the US have adopted ranked choice voting -- first choice, second choice, third choice -- for state/local elections. This system has been implemented in too few places and too recently (last 10 years) to tell how much of a difference it would make if adopted nationwide. I'd welcome it as a possible break of the lock the Democrat/Republican parties have on power.

There’s been a material change of circumstances: the lies, the overspending, Cambridge Analytica, etc. have been exposed; there’s actual advice on the repercussions of leaving; and now that we know what the Leave deal is we have real information about what we’d be voting for. — Michael

There's always lies in any political campaign, that's to be expected, and that doesn't warrant a second referendum. There has been overspending in the past, that also doesn't warrant a second referendum, it warrants being reported and dealt with by the authorities, as in any other case, which it has been, and ditto with Cambridge Analytica.

There was actual advice on the repercussions of leaving before now, with the government spending millions on posting leaflets to every household, economists making predictions, and politicians and others being all over TV and in the papers talking about the repercussions of Brexit almost nonstop for the last couple of years. Have you been living under a rock?

This being a representative democracy, now that the withdrawal agreement has been published, it was to be put to the houses of parliament to have a meaningful vote and final say. And that is still due to go ahead, whatever May brings back. She can't delay the inevitable.

You have no right to be complacent. The people wanted a direct say, and our representatives were generous enough to grant the people their wish with a referendum, and with the caution that whatever the people chose, both major parties would commit to honouring the result. The people voted to leave.

Now, just because it hasn't gone your way, you want to do the dishonourable thing and reverse all of that, despite the repercussions. And you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses, just like the SNP who were agitating for a second referendum on independence so soon after losing it. Well, no, sorry, but that's not how it works, or how it ought to work. Don't be a sore loser. You lost fair and square. If you want someone to blame, then blame David Cameron. He bears responsibility for much of this mess.

Did the 2017 GE undermine the 2015 GE? — Michael

Yes, it did in a sense, but that's on Theresa May for going back on her word and calling a snap general election. From a nonpartisan perspective, I don't generally condone politicians strongly and publicly committing to a course of action, only to u-turn on it later, except in exceptional circumstances. That's why politicians have such a bad reputation, and that's not a good thing.

Yes it would. But that’s a price worth paying to avoid the much worse alternative, especially if May’s deal is voted down and we leave without a deal which will break the Good Friday Agreement. The reality is that the practicalities often require going back on promises, which is why manifesto pledges are rarely, if ever, all fulfilled. — Michael

I don't think that we'll leave without a deal, as that's widely considered on all sides to be a worst case scenario. As things stand, May's deal would have almost inevitably been voted down. That's why she had to delay the vote. And that's why she now has to renegotiate a better deal. That's the best option available without betraying the vote to leave. And betraying the vote to leave would do serious damage to the health of our political system and to society. It's not a price worth paying, unless perhaps it triggers a revolution and we end up with a much better system. After a soft Brexit, we won't have it as good as we have it now, but neither will it be the end of the world. We'll set up new trade arrangements and still be a prosperous nation in relatively good health. We will recover.

I don’t. I think Article 50 should just be revoked and Brexit cancelled. — Michael

That seems like a very remote possibility at this stage. But maybe if there's a major fuck up, it could happen. May has acknowledged the possibility of there being no Brexit, but seemingly more as a warning and as a tactic. And Corbyn has made mention of all options being on the table, but more as a last resort, and, of course, he is in opposition, not government.

Maybe referenda are not such a good idea? Sometimes referenda begin as a way for the "popular will" to be expressed, but most often referenda are started and fueled by some particular interest. California is a good example: A now decades-past referendum on lowering property taxes has degraded California's once excellent public services which depends on property tax revenue. Real estate interests were the instigators and beneficiaries.

Who started Brexit? What was their expected benefit?

Don't be a sore loser. You lost fair and square. — S

This isn’t a game. It’s not about winning and losing. There are very real and very serious consequences to leaving that weren’t apparent during the referendum and that certainly couldn’t have been known before the terms of leaving were actually negotiated.

For some people this really is a life or death issue. There’s talk of staff shortages for the NHS and a negative effect on the medical supply chain, at least in the case of a no deal exit.

This isn’t a game. It’s not about winning and losing. There are very real and very serious consequences to leaving that weren’t apparent during the referendum and that certainly couldn’t have been known before the terms of leaving were actually negotiated. — Michael

Sure, and if the choice were made to stay, there'd be people arguing that they didn't realize what staying really meant. That's the thing about decisions. You are stuck with the information you have when you decide.

For some people this really is a life or death issue. There’s talk of staff shortages for the NHS and a negative effect on the medical supply chain, at least in the case of a no deal exit. — Michael

Nobody's going to die. In the US, we don't even have an NHS and everyone, regardless of income, figures out how to get care. You really need to get off the idea that the government is as necessary as it is. That's a very European viewpoint of yours.

My assessment from thousands of miles of way is that the decision to leave was ideological and wasn't based upon a review of the pros and cons of leaving versus staying. It's for that reason that I really don't think any of your data points would be very persuasive to someone in favor of leaving. It's about autonomy, self-governance, self-reliance, and a general view that Brits believe they know what's best for Brits better than anyone else. The opposition will interpret all that as racism and xenophobia I'm sure though.

This isn’t a game. It’s not about winning and losing. — Michael

Don't you think I know that? That wasn't my meaning. But the metaphor is apt when you think about this in terms of virtue ethics. Virtue ethics has an important place in politics. If you can't be trusted to play with honour, then that will have detrimental consequences for the game, for players, for supporters, for society. And, when you think about the fact that this has widely been considered to be the biggest political event since the second world war, and when you think about the fact that the referendum brought about the largest turnout for a long time, I can tell you, society would be deeply divided, far more than it is now and than it has been in a long time, and the backlash would be fierce.

There are very real and very serious consequences to leaving that weren’t apparent during the referendum and that certainly couldn’t have been known before the terms of leaving were actually negotiated.

For some people this really is a life or death issue. There’s talk of staff shortages for the NHS and a negative affect on the medical supply chain, at least in the case of a no deal exit. — Michael

In the case of a no deal exit...

And what if your favoured course of action caused serious riots? We've had them here before not all that long ago, and they've been going on in France the last several weeks. People lose their lives, people get injured, cars get set on fire, windows get smashed, projectiles get thrown, tear gas, rubber bullets, violence and mayhem.

Remember, 17.4 million people voted to leave. That'd be a huge number of angry citizens feeling betrayed by their government.

There could be an optional preferential referendum, where people list their choices in order. — andrewk

There could be, but if so, it should only contain options about what kind of Brexit you want, because Remain lost, and that ought to actually mean something.

"We'll honour this referendum, we promise". Loses referendum. "Scratch that, we're having another referendum, but this time, we'll honour it, promise ". And what if this second referendum were lost? "Come on, guys, let's give it another shot, eh? Third time's a charm!".

And what if this second referendum wasn't lost? "Oh, never mind that first referendum that we lost, that didn't really count, but this second referendum that we've won, that's the one that counts".

I would lose trust in the government. I would actually consider voting to leave in protest.

It's for that reason that I really don't think any of your data points would be very persuasive to someone in favor of leaving. — Hanover

I'm not trying to persuade them. I'm saying that there is justification for holding a second referendum.

And also that Brexit should just be cancelled without bothering with a second referendum.

Nobody's going to die. In the US, we don't even have an NHS and everyone, regardless of income, figures out how to get care. You really need to get off the idea that the government is as necessary as it is. That's a very European viewpoint of yours — Hanover

It isn’t about private or public healthcare. It’s about the UK’s supply chain being tied to us being a member of the single market, given that we don’t manufacture all the drugs. It takes significant time to establish new trade agreements and work out the new logistics of getting stuff into the country.

I'm not trying to persuade them. I'm saying that there is justification for holding a second referendum. — Michael

Like I'm saying though, if the justification of those who wanted to leave is that they simply believe in the concept of home rule and autonomy, then your justification holds no weight for them. People who believe in self-rule are not going to be convinced that there will be major failures when they begin to self rule.

And also that Brexit should just be cancelled without bothering with a second referendum. — Michael

I agree with S on this one. You can't defy the democracy, as if you know better for them. The loss of public support for the legitimacy of the system is a bigger loss than simply pulling the plug on the latest economic idea.

Like I'm saying though, if the justification of those who wanted to leave is that they simply believe in the concept of home rule and autonomy, then your justification holds no weight for them. People who believe in self-rule are not going to be convinced that there will be major failures when they begin to self rule. — Hanover

It’s justified even if they aren’t convinced that it is.

I agree with S on this one. You can't defy the democracy, as if you know better for them. The loss of public support for the legitimacy of the system is a bigger loss than simply pulling the plug on the latest economic idea. — Hanover

I’d wager that the consequences of a no deal Brexit are worse than the consequences of cancelling Brexit.

It isn’t about private or public healthcare. It’s about the UK’s supply chain being tied to us being a member of the single market, given that we don’t manufacture all the drugs. It takes significant time to establish new trade agreements and work out the new logistics. — Michael

I expect diligence on the part of your leaders as well as allowances on the part of other European nations in making sure people don't die of curable diseases. I'm not saying Brexit doesn't matter as I'm sure it will have economic consequences, but I truly think that your concerns that there will a real lack of basic goods and services is alarmist.

What a funny name for it. We just call it preferential voting, and it seems as natural as breathing. I can't think of a single reason why anybody that understands how it works would not want it.

Preferential voting is like having a two-round election like they have in many countries, such as the French Presidential election. Except by marking the preferences on a single ballot, you avoid all the cost and wasted time of having to conduct a second ballot, without losing any of its nuance and functionality. The elimination of less supported candidates and narrowing down to a final two happens automatically.

There must have been a lot of misinformation about for it to have been rejected in 2011. I suppose the Tories prefer first past the post because Labour and Lib Dem would direct preferences to one another, and thereby be elected much more often than at present. — andrewk

It's largely tactical, I suspect. I think alternative voting systems threaten the pattern of governments alternating between Labour and Conservative, or threaten to decrease the Labour-Conservative share of seats, and most people, being either Labour or Conservative, therefore have an incentive to preserve the status quo. It comes as no surprise that most of the smaller parties, like the Lib Dems, Greens, and UKIP have supported alternative voting systems, whereas the two major parties seem content enough with the current system. First past the post, over the last decade, has helped prevent UKIP candidates from gaining seats, which I consider a positive.

No it wouldn't. It would be a third people's vote. The first vote was in 1973, and the result was to remain. — unenlightened

Yes, I was aware of that. Although the result was to join, not to remain. Back then "remain" would've had a different meaning. But the reason I didn't include that people's vote is because it was forty-five years ago, as opposed to just two years ago. I'd be much more sympathetic to a people's vote if it was to occur in forty-five years time since the last one.

I suspect what would be really popular would be to end the Good Friday agreement and give N. Ireland back to the Republic. — unenlightened

Yeah, let's just casually risk reigniting the tensions behind The Troubles. :brow:

I don't live in the UK, but I'm in favor of there eventually being world unification/a one-world government... — Terrapin Station

Dream on. That'll never work. The world is too big a place, with multiple conflicting interests. There will always be a great number of those who would oppose unification and prevent it from happening. And if it became corrupt, it would be harder to topple. That actually makes me think of The Empire in Star Wars.

The world is too big a place, with multiple conflicting interests. — S

The main thing we'd need to get over is people wanting to control others. We'd need people to be comfortable with letter others do their own (consensual) things

The main thing we'd need to get over is people wanting to control others. We'd need people to be comfortable with letter others do their own (consensual) things. — Terrapin Station

So, we'd need people to stop acting like people? You're wading into sci-fi territory here. What do you propose? Forcibly inserting a chip into people's brains? The Clockwork Orange method? Eugenics, as per a Brave New World?

And what if this second referendum wasn't lost? — S

Plebiscites aren't won or lost. They choose between options. Since all three options in my proposal above are clear, concrete and possible without agreement from outside parties, it would be political suicide for a government to not implement the result, whatever it was.

This contrasts strictly with the 2016 plebiscite, which was purely aspirational, with no concrete options on the table, and no knowledge of what the consequences of the 'leave' option would be, since they would require agreement from the EU. It's like having a plebiscite question 'would you like to have lower tax', when there's no specification of what services would be cut, and which ones, or whether the fiscal deficit would be allowed to increase instead.

For a plebiscite to be credible it needs to have concrete options that can be implemented without requiring consent from extra-territorial parties.

Look at how bills are turned into acts in parliament. They are not voted or even formally debated until a bill is presented that spells out ALL the details.

BTW I use the term plebiscite here because referendums actually change the law directly, whereas plebiscites are an indication of preference, on which the government is expected to act. In Australia we have both referenda (on things like conscription and banning the communist party - both lost) and plebiscites (recently on marriage equality). My understanding is that the UK has no provision for referenda in its constitution, so only plebiscites are possible.

Plebiscites aren't won or lost. They choose between options. — andrewk

No, they are either won are lost in the right context. Are you just going to ignore the context, or background, here? We've already had a referendum, and there were two sides: Leave and Remain. Leave won, Remain lost. It's either disingenuous or some sort of pedantry to deny that there are winners and losers here, as in any referendum or election.

Now, the hypothetical scenario of which I spoke was spoken of in terms indicating that it was addressing the Remain side, i.e. the losers, and it raised the valid concern about what the implications would be if the Remain side won a second time around; meaning, going by your options, the third option to cancel Brexit and remain a member of the EU.

Since all three options in my proposal above are clear, concrete and possible without agreement from outside parties, it would be political suicide for a government to not implement the result, whatever it was. — andrewk

It was political suicide for the Lib Dems under Nick Clegg to go back on their word to scrap university tuition fees. The pledge to scrap university tuition fees didn't have the support of anything close to 17.4 million people. So don't be so hasty in supposing that doing anything other than honouring the result of the referendum - by which I mean the one that we actually had back in June of 2016, in which the clear result was to leave the EU, not the as yet purely hypothetical second referendum - would be damaging, if not political suicide. And advocating a second referendum hasn't exactly revived the fortunes of the Lib Dems.

This contrasts strictly with the 2016 plebiscite, which was purely aspirational, with no concrete options on the table, and no knowledge of what the consequences of the 'leave' option would be, since they would require agreement from the EU. It's like having a plebiscite question 'would you like to have lower tax', when there's no specification of what services would be cut, and which ones, or whether the fiscal deficit would be allowed to increase instead. — andrewk

Yes, the option to leave does indeed umbrella into a variety of other options, but one thing's for sure, remaining in the EU isn't one of them. Since the UK voted to leave, and therefore not remain in the EU, then the option to remain in the EU has no rightful place being on that ballot, as it completely goes against the will of the people, as expressed by the majority who voted to leave in the referendum. It would be utterly wrong of you or anyone else to risk undoing or invalidating that result. What do you think gives you that right? The people have spoken, and it's the duty of the government, as representatives of the people, to honour the result, as they have committed to doing. And if those in charge have a backbone, then they'll do just that, or risk being punished by the electorate.

For a plebiscite to be credible it needs to have concrete options that can be implemented without requiring consent from extra-territorial parties.

Look at how bills are turned into acts in parliament. They are not voted or even formally debated until a bill is presented that spells out ALL the details.

BTW I use the term plebiscite here because referendums actually change the law directly, whereas plebiscites are an indication of preference, on which the government is expected to act. In Australia we have both referenda (on things like conscription and banning the communist party - both lost) and plebiscites (recently on marriage equality). My understanding is that the UK has no provision for referenda in its constitution, so only plebiscites are possible. — andrewk

I've got nothing against that. By all means, let's have more details, let's have a vote on the various options, the various ways of leaving, but let's not risk undoing and rendering meaningless the 2016 referendum, of which a great number of people turned out to vote, and in which a great number of people are invested, by including the option to remain in the EU, the option that lost out two years ago. We ought to move forward, and move forward without taking two steps back with each step forward.

"Although the result was to join, not to remain"

Sorry but that is wrong, we were taken into the EEC in 1973 by the then Conservative govt under the leadership of PM Edward Heath, (without a referendum)

In 1975 the first referendum was whether to remain in the EEC.

"Although the result was to join, not to remain"

Sorry but that is wrong, we were taken into the EEC in 1973 by the then Conservative govt under the leadership of PM Edward Heath, (without a referendum)

In 1975 the first referendum was whether to remain in the EEC. — TWI

Okay, I stand corrected. (I probably should have checked before commenting).