That's ok, I checked before posting!

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? — S

I understand that you think it would be utterly wrong. I am not convinced of your arguments for that.

My position is that the question asked in the plebiscite was inappropriate for a binding vote. The solution is to have a vote with options that are appropriate for a binding vote. That means options that clearly outline what would happen in each case, not just some airy-fairy magic word like 'leave'.

Australia had a plebiscite about becoming a republic in 1999. In opinion polls a large majority of respondents responded 'Yes' to the question 'Do you want Australia to become a republic'. But that question is inappropriate for a binding vote, because there are many different types of republic one could become. Quite rightly, the PM at the time insisted on the vote being on a specific concrete option. Quite wrongly - IMHO - he chose an option that he knew would be unpalatable to most republicans - essentially 'republic lite', like 'Brexit lite'. Quite rightly (IMHO again) the voters rejected that, even though most would say they wanted a republic.

A truly fair process would have been to have an optional preferential vote ('AV' for Poms) that listed the various models:

1. No change
2. Directly elected President
3. President elected by majority of both houses of parliament
4. President appointed by a committee that is appointed by parliament [the option that was put forward in the actual plebiscite]

But the PM was a devout monarchist so he didn't want to do that, as a republican option (either 2 or 3) would almost certainly have won.

But I still do agree with him that it would have been inappropriate to put the question 'Do you want a republic' to a referendum. And that's despite me being a staunch republican who still occasionally mourns that lost opportunity 19 years ago.

There are numerous attempts to represent the majority of those who voted in favor of Brexit as mislead by irresponsible politicians, ignorant, not sufficiently informed, not responsible, etc. Therefore, now they are given a precious and rare opportunity to fix the mistake, to conduct another referendum or just to cancel the previous one. Nevertheless, if one considers that Brexit has been an outstanding example of the contemporary direct democracy when people directly and openly expressed their will, its failure will demonstrate the supremacy of elite over defenseless people.

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. — Hanover

Pretty spot on, I'd say. The phrase often bandied around is "taking back control". Of our borders, our laws, our agriculture, our fisheries, our ability to strike trade deals with nations outside of the European Union. Even though the evidence suggests that we'll be economically worse off, which is a biggie for me.

But then, there very likely is a saturation of herpa derps who voted leave because dey derrrk our jerrbs!! Especially the ukippers.

My position is that the question asked in the plebiscite was inappropriate for a binding vote. The solution is to have a vote with options that are appropriate for a binding vote. — andrewk

That wouldn't have been such an issue, in my opinion, if the government and the official leave campaign, had (1) been better prepared, and (2) been more transparent. Although, admittedly, I do think that they were quite clear on some of the key points about what a leave vote would entail - and no, I don't mean the idiotic sound bites, such as "leave means means" and "a red, white, and blue Brexit" - such as leaving the customs union and the single market, as well as regaining control of our borders.

Anyway, I'm glad that you didn't become a republic. I'm quite fond of the monarchy and commonwealth.

Is Brexit a rightwing populist thing? — frank

For the most part, yes.

For the most part, yes. — S

Will the British manage immigration differently after Brexit?

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)? — Baden

Is it not ultimately the responsibility of voters to do their own research before such an important vote, and to make up their own mind? Is it not the responsibility of voters to have heeded the warning that the referendum will be treated as binding, and that there'll be no going back? It was said by David Cameron often enough. That's the equivalent of it being made clear to you that there are no refunds for this particular product that you've purchased, but then you go back and demand a refund anyway. Yes, at the campaign stage, both campaigns could have - and ideally should have - been clearer, more honest, more balanced, and so on... but honestly, what did we expect? We know that politicians lie and twist the truth, we know that they have an agenda to push. Are we really so naive as to believe anything different? We've made our bed, now we have to lie in it.

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. — Baden

That's problematic because (1) on principle, why should it be rerun in the first place? And (2) it's still a risk.

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. — Baden

I don't actually believe that there would be a second, third, fourth, fifth, and so on, until the desired outcome is achieved. That's not really the point. It's a hypothetical designed to get the point across about a loss of trust. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Will the British manage immigration differently after Brexit? — frank

I expect so, yes. More so under the Tories. Theresa May has said that the focus will be on high-skilled workers.

I expect so, yes. More so under the Tories. Theresa May has said that the focus will be on high-skilled workers. — S

That's kind of saddening: that we respond to the burden of taking care of our neighbors by turning into rightwing populists. Or maybe it's just that rightwing populist movement is a sign that the stress of immigration is becoming too high?

That's kind of saddening: that we respond to the burden of taking care of our neighbors by turning into rightwing populists. Or maybe it's just that the rightwing populist movement is a sign that the stress of immigration is becoming too high? — frank

I find it more worrying than saddening. And I really don't see much of a problem with immigration, to be honest. Why would I? It's a net benefit, economically. Who cares about "integration"? Okay, so your neighbour speaks a foreign language, dresses differently, and so on: how is that a problem for you? Mind your own damn business. If you struggle to get work or find a school placement, then try looking inwards, or at what the goverment is doing, instead of scapegoating immigrants. If the alleged stress of immigration you speak of is the "stress on the system" that people talk about, then just take look at who keeps our beloved NHS running, or again, at what our government is doing, or not doing. Or, if the alleged stress of immigration you speak of is psychological in nature, then perhaps check yourself into our beloved NHS and get your head checked.

You're getting moralistic about it. I was trying to understand it mechanically. Clinton's point was that the pattern is repeating in multiple places.

You're getting moralistic about it. I was trying to understand it mechanically. Clinton's point was that the pattern is repeating in multiple places. — frank

My take on it is that it probably has something to do with an anti-establishment sentiment, a feeling of not being listened to, with charismatic, outspoken mavericks striking a chord, and with the exploitation of fears and prejudices.

I'm assuming Brexit is pretty big news globally now, so what are people's thoughts on it? I think there should be a people's vote. — Evil

I think it's a total cock-up. Cameron miscalculated disastrously calling it, but now the genie is out of the bottle. I'm really hoping the net result of the current schemozzle is that there is a second vote and Remain wins by a decent margin. The worst case is a no-deal exit which many say will cause a deep recession.

As for Theresa May - I think she has done the only thing she was able to do, which is, negotiate a deal. The Brexiteers never would have even deigned to negotiate. Personally I think she should have held the vote, resigned, and said, 'Here, Boris, you look after it'. Talk about a poisoned chalice.

Anyway, my wishes for 2019 are that Brexit is abandoned (and that Trump is impeached). The results of both those votes have been and will continue to be unmitigated disaster for the world.

I'm interested in hearing jamalrob's opinion on proceedings. — Evil

Hi Evil. I don't think I have the heart for this debate any more. Who knows, maybe I'll muster the energy to gather up my tatty old opinions for another try, but maybe not.

Is it not ultimately the responsibility of voters to do their own research before such an important vote, and to make up their own mind? — S

There's a dual responsibility on voters and on the campaigns providing voters with information. That is, respectively, to do a reasonably thorough job of searching for information and to do a reasonably honest job of providing information. Even if the voters carry out their responsibility fully, if the campaign is found not to have (as the Leave campaign has) and particularly if the vote was won narrowly (as it was) then the result is called into question. And if the result is called into question, the most straightforward and fair way to resolve the question is to repeat the referendum.

That's the equivalent of it being made clear to you that there are no refunds for this particular product that you've purchased, but then you go back and demand a refund anyway. Yes, at the campaign stage, both campaigns could have - and ideally should have - been clearer, more honest, more balanced, and so on... but honestly, what did we expect? We know that politicians lie and twist the truth, we know that they have an agenda to push. Are we really so naive as to believe anything different? Are we really so naive as to believe anything different? We've made our bed, now we have to lie in it. — S

Saying "Tough luck" isn't a moral argument. The public may not be entitled to expect full honesty from politicians, but they are at least entitled to expect that neither campaign break the law, which the Leave campaign did.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/leave-campaign-broke-law-in-brexit-vote-uk-elections-regulator-finds/

Analogously, if someone advertising a product as non-refundable breaks the law in terms of the information it provides concerning the product, that condition becomes moot and they may be forced to give a refund regardless. Similar rules apply to contract law. That a company writes in a service contract that the second you sign it there's no going back doesn't matter if there is a legally binding cooling-off period written into law. And I expect if you were duped through illegal methods into buying something that turned out to have been falsely advertised and you were no longer satisfied with it, you'd feel you had the high moral ground in demanding a refund regardless of the conditions under which you bought it. And the law would rightly back you up.

All this is to say that considering the conditions under which this particular referendum took place and the close result thereafter, there is no ethical justification for denying those who voted to leave on the basis of false information and an illegally conducted campaign the opportunity to rectify their mistake.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. — S

Yes, millions of voters were fooled once by the Leave campaign into voting for something they didn't really want, and they shouldn't now be fooled into thinking there's anything wrong with being allowed to have another say. Thankfully, polls show they're not being so fooled with a plurality now supporting a people's vote. And no-one with a democratic bone in their body should deny them one.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/three-point-three-million-leave-voters-support-peoples-vote-says-new-poll-1-5719471
https://www.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-peoples-vote-second-referendum-brexit-fears-grow-over-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-8?r=US&IR=T

What do you propose? — S

Trying to maneuver people who very conspicuously don't want to control others into positions of social influence.

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. — Bitter Crank

I don't know. There are pros and cons. I like the idea of self-determination in the form of a referendum put to the electorate of a nation on certain important issues, like the Scottish independence referendum and the Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, so long as a sufficient length of time has passed since the last one on the same issue. But on the other hand, I wish that we had never had the EU referendum. Although, if enough people would've demanded it, then I think that the government would've been duty bound to offer one.

Who started Brexit? What was their expected benefit? — Bitter Crank

I think that David Cameron was the main culprit, despite the part that others had to play in it, like Nigel Farage. He was the Prime Minister, after all. Before the referendum took place, he expected to negotiate worthwhile reforms from the EU and quell the rabble rousers within his own party, but that failed, and it left many people with feelings of disappointment and frustration that the reforms didn't go far enough. He then tried in vein to spin his agreed reforms as a great success, but very few were buying it. Then he expected to win the campaign he lead to remain, secure our membership to the EU for the foreseeable future, put the matter to rest for some time, and go some way to healing the divisions in his party. That backfired quite spectacularly, and he resigned shortly afterwards, leaving others to pick up the pieces. Thanks Dave!

I'm just happy the Brits, every now and then, are taking the pressure off us Americans for being the biggest shitshow country — Maw

Yes, every time I'm tempted to show my contempt for the US, and the President it chose, I remember we chose to teach the world a lesson :worry: by walking away from the most favourable membership-position in the biggest economic power block on the planet. :fear:

es, every time I'm tempted to show my contempt for the US, and the President it chose, — Pattern-chaser

If we're not to choose him again in 2020 the Democrats had better start getting their act together pretty soon and come up with some viable candidates, people who don't already have a mound of controversy in their past, people who aren't 80 years old or whatever already, and people who have some charisma, with an ability to appeal to some of the people who would otherwise vote for Trump.

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

But that's comparing an unpopular worst case scenario of Brexit to cancelling Brexit. I'd wager that the consequences of a soft Brexit which meets most people's expectations wouldn't be worse than the consequences of cancelling that kind of Brexit.

I am hopeful that those doing the negotiating will be sensible enough to do their best to avoid that worst case scenario. But if that risk reaches a point where it seriously looks like it's going to become a reality, then yes, I think that cancelling Brexit should be an option on the table, as I doubt that there's a majority, whether of the people or in parliament, for a no deal Brexit.

If we're not to choose him again in 2020 the Democrats had better start getting their act together pretty soon and come up with some viable candidates, people who don't already have a mound of controversy in their past, people who aren't 80 years old or whatever already, and people who have some charisma, with an ability to appeal to some of the people who would otherwise vote for Trump. — Terrapin Station

So Beto.

So Beto. — Michael

I don't know enough about him, really. What would you blame for him being defeated by Cruz last month?

What would you blame for him being defeated by Cruz last month? — Terrapin Station

He ran in Texas.

If Bernie or Michelle went for it, I reckon they'd stand a good chance.

Well, if he can't beat Trump in any of the traditionally conservative states, doesn't that make him score low in the "ability to appeal to some of the people who would otherwise vote for Trump" metric?

There hasn't been a Democrat Senator in Texas since 1993. Cruz won it in 2012 by 16pp, but only beat Beto by 2.6pp. That's a big swing. I don't know how much of that is down to Beto being Beto, but he probably appealed to a lot of people who usually vote Republican.

If he can pull that off in the swing states that Trump won then he can beat Trump.

There hasn't been a Democrat Senator in Texas since 1993. Cruz won it in 2012 by 16pp, but only beat Beto by 2.6pp. That's a big swing. I don't know how much of that is down to Beto being Beto, but he probably appealed to a lot of people who usually vote Republican.

If he can pull that off in the swing states that Trump won then he can beat Trump. — Michael

So maybe there's some hope for that, then.

Well, if he can't beat Trump in any of the traditionally conservative states, doesn't that make him score low in the "ability to appeal to some of the people who would otherwise vote for Trump" metric? — Terrapin Station

But think about the metrics that Trump scored low in. Women and minorities constitute a very significant portion of the electorate. And he had little hope of winning them over in big numbers. Yet he still won. I think the Democrats need someone who can stand out and match or supersede the momentum behind Trump, even if it might cost them swing votes.

Putting all the wrangling to one side we are left with the fact that the majority of voters in the referendum indicated a wish to leave the EU. — TWI

Yes, but equally straightforward is the observation that the majority you refer to is quite a small one, so the people who voted against are not many fewer than those who voted for. That is the problem: the split is more or less even, in the country and across the government. The original referendum should have had a 66% or 75% threshold for change, given the seriousness of the decision being made. That was Cameron's crime against the British people: not putting that threshold in place. But now, given the mess he's left us all in, there's no fixing it, that I can see.

If it was possible, I would re-run the original referendum, with a 66% threshold, allowing 15+ year-olds to vote, and disallowing anyone over 70, who will not be around to suffer the consequences (or reap the benefits). But that can't happen, if only because of Cameron's failure to ensure a threshold in the first vote.

Can anyone see a way out of this catastrophic mess?