I'd wager that the consequences of a soft Brexit which meets most people's expectations... — S

Do you honestly think there's any sort of Brexit that would command a majority of the British people? I don't, and I think that's why we're in such a serious mess. There is IMO no solution that "meets most people's expectations". [ Unless "most" is meant to mean just-barely-over 50%.] :fear:

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. — Pattern-chaser

It seems slight in percentage, but in actual numbers, over 1.2 million (source) more people voted to leave. And that seems more significant to me.

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. — Pattern-chaser

I wouldn't rerun the referendum, but I wouldn't have minded if the referendum that we had, had've been run under similar conditions to what you propose. A 66% - 75% threshold seems too high to be fair, though. If the results were 60-40, for example, then that would look like a fair win to me. But it's too late for that now.

YouGov did an interesting poll where considering Remain, Leave (no deal) and Leave (May's deal) as options, Remain wins on any head to head, but May's deal wins on a three-way alternative vote. I suppose because most Remainers and most Leave no-dealers would favour just about anything over each other's respective positions. Something like a soft Brexit is probably the fairest option then as it allows Leavers to give their coveted up-yours to Johnny Foreigner while only shooting themselves (and everyone else) in the foot rather than in the head.

Theresa May may be a goner by the end of today... https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46535739

Theresa May may be a goner by the end of today... — Evil

And she will be replaced by [ insert the name of a suitable candidate here]? :chin:

And she will be replaced by [Pattern-chaser] — Pattern-chaser

I don't actually know... Ken Clarke or Anna Soubry hopefully

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. — Baden

But that seems like an inconsistent and opportunistic position, as you aren't piping up about other elections or referenda which succumbed to similar faults being rendered invalid and needing to be rerun or compensated in some kind of way, are you? How are you not guilty of a double standard? To be consistent, this would mean that we've had quite a few invalid general elections. What are we to do about that, then?

Saying "Tough luck" isn't a moral argument. — Baden

It is, actually. It's just phrased in a straight talking manner. For example, if you're found guilty of murder, then you're going to prison. If you don't like that, tough luck! You should've thought about that before committing a serious crime. Agree or disagree?

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. — Baden

Yes, I know, I haven't ever disputed that. But that has been dealt with, or is being dealt with, appropriately in the usual manner in which these things are dealt. Your proposed way of dealing with it stands out as unusual, and opportunistic. It lacks precedent. We have authorities and a legal system to deal with matters such as this. People like you, on the other hand, are exploiting this for a political agenda.

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. — Baden

Yes, it should be dealt with by the relevant authorities in accordance with the law. And it has, or is. But no judge has ruled that the referendum be declared invalid and be rerun. And they probably aren't going to. It's the politicians, journalists, TV personalities, activists, and people like you who are calling out for another referendum.

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. — Baden

There is, and I've made the case for rejecting calls for a second referendum here in this discussion.

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. — Baden

Tell that to most of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave, and would do so again, as numerous polls indicate, yet who are strongly against a second referendum being held because it risks undoing the results of a referendum which we were promised over and again would be upheld. You suggest rectifying lies by creating more lies? I don't think so. It has been accepted that we're leaving for two years now. The goverment has been working towards making that happen all of this time. You Remoaners really ought to stop making excuses to change the past and accept the situation for what it is. The situation isn't great, but we're locked into it, lest we face the double whammy of betraying the people and damaging the credibility of our political system. Something extraordinary needs to take place to warrant undoing that, and that could take the form of an impending and unwanted no deal scenario, which would be quite disastrous.

But that seems like an inconsistent and opportunistic position, as you aren't piping up about other elections or referenda which succumbed to similar faults being rendered invalid and needing to be rerun or compensated in some kind of way, are you? — S

That's an odd charge. The topic of this conversation is Brexit, which is why that's the focus of my posts. I'm not under any obligation in order to maintain consistency to research and comment on other referenda that were closely fought and narrowly won through illegal means (and I don't know of any off-hand). Which were you referring to? Name one.

To be fair, this would mean that we've had quite a few invalid general elections. What are we to do about that, then? — S

Off-topic but feel free to name them, so I at least have a chance to respond.

It is, actually. It's just phrased in a straight talking manner. For example, if you're found guilty of murder, then you're going to prison, but you don't want to go to prison, then tough luck! You should've thought about that before committing a serious crime. Agree or disagree? — S

It isn't a moral argument in the context in which you applied it, which didn't involve any crime or immoral act on the part of those who you aimed the comment at.

Yes, I know, I haven't ever disputed that. But that has been dealt with, or is being dealt with, appropriately in the usual manner in which these things are dealt. Your proposed way of dealing with it stands out as unusual, and opportunistic. It lacks precedent. With have authorities and legal system to deal with matters such as this. You're using this for a political agenda. — S

The issue is what an ethical response would be and that's what I was explicating. So again, you're filling your posts with irrelevancies. It doesn't matter what political viewpoint I take or whether it appears opportunistic to you. The argument that a referendum that may have been won by cheating should be repeated so as not to deny those cheated a chance to change their minds stands on its own merits.

Yes, it should be dealt with by the relevant authorities in accordance with the law. And it has, or is. But no judge has ruled that the referendum be declared invalid and be rerun. — S

Nor have they ruled that it can't be. Which is why we're having this discussion.

There is, and I've made the case for rejecting calls for a second referendum here in this discussion. — S

An extremely weak case from which when you extract all the irrelevancies and accusations concerning the motives of your opposition still boils down to nothing more than "tough luck".

Tell that to the vast majority* of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave, and would do so again, yet are strongly against a second referendum because it risks undoing the results of a referendum which we were told would be upheld. — S

Those who are strongly against a new referendum are strongly against it because they might lose one that's run fairly and without illegality or cheating. Again, a very weak position morally.

*Numerous polls show that most people on either side would vote the same way. — S

"Most" does not equal "The vast majority" btw. And if a significant number wouldn't vote the same way, which polls do show (see my last post), why should they be denied that opportunity? Oh I know, "tough luck" because murderers have to go to prison. You're going to have to do better than that.

You suggest rectifying lies by creating more lies? — S

No (and I have no idea where you got that from. Where did I suggest we "create" more lies?). I suggest an unfair referendum where one side conducted their campaign dishonestly and illegally (in part) be rectified with a fair referendum where both sides conduct their campaigns honestly and legally.

You remoaners really ought to stop making excuses to change the past and accept the situation for what it is. — S

I suspect this continuing pattern of irrelevancy and emoting is indicative of the lack of moral substance to your position.

And she will be replaced by [ insert the name of a suitable candidate here]? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

And she will be replaced by [ Pattern-chaser ] — Pattern-chaser & Evil

Oh no, I don't think so. I'm not much of a diplomat. If I was in charge, anyone who owned more than £5m would have the balance removed; income tax would be abolished and moved onto resource-consumption, business and commerce (from where it would return to the common people via retail pricing); Brexit would be cancelled; the national anthem will be replaced by "21st century schizoid man", and so on. I suspect the British people wouldn't like/want me, despite the good I would do....

The situation isn't great, but we're locked into it, lest we face the double whammy of betraying the people and damaging the credibility of our political system. — S

I rather think we here in the United Kingdom have a long-established tradition of our governments betraying us, whereby our political system long ago lost its integrity and credibility.

Do you honestly think there's any sort of Brexit that would command a majority of the British people? — Pattern-chaser

But, irrespective of my answer to that question, the fact of the matter is that Leave won the referendum. So we're not starting from scratch here. As things stand, Remain is no longer a viable option. So it wouldn't be the various kinds of Brexit vs. Remain - which would split the Leave vote whilst keeping intact the Remain vote, meaning that Remain would probably win. It would be the various kinds of Brexit vs. each other, and for that, I can confidently predict that a no deal Brexit would lose. There would be a majority in favour of some sort of deal being struck.

Something extraordinary needs to take place to warrant undoing that, and that could take the form of an impending and unwanted no deal scenario, which would be quite disastrous. — S

That's what I'm arguing on the basis of, the possibility of a no-deal scenario. May's deal does not have parliament's support and there is no deal B both according to her and to Europe. If May's deal had been passed, we wouldn't be having this conversation as there would be nothing left to talk about. So...

Oh no, I don't think so. I'm not much of a diplomat. If I was in charge, anyone who owned more than £5m would have the balance removed; income tax would be abolished and moved onto resource-consumption, business and commerce (from where it would return to the common people via retail pricing); Brexit would be cancelled; the national anthem will be replaced by "21st century schizoid man", and so on. I suspect the British people wouldn't like/want me, despite the good I would do.... — Pattern-chaser

You got my vote.

I rather think we here in the United Kingdom have a long-established tradition of our governments betraying us, whereby our political system long ago lost its integrity and credibility. — Pattern-chaser

It's not completely lost. The damage can manifest itself in terms of low turnouts, protest votes, protests, and in extreme cases, riots. If the system is already in poor health, let's not make it worse if it can be avoided.

My general response to your hyper-litigious position, which essentially submits any disagreeable voter outcome to a do over if any irregularity can be found, is worse than the problem it seeks to solve. We must assume, absent some extreme case, that each side of the political battle wages its best fight for its position, and if it doesn't, it pays the price with a loss. To do otherwise attacks the heart of democratic decision making.

In other words, the Brexits won. Game over. Stop bitching at the refs to achieve in the courtroom what you couldn't achieve on the playing field. These efforts of yours at fairness are really just efforts to force through a minority position that you think is obviously right despite it being less popular. Go back to the gym, work harder, and get them next time.

If the UK's exit from the EU turns catastrophic, they'll just reenter later. It's not like the EU nations are unforgiving. The real concern is if the UK thrives, how long will Germany hang in there and carry its poorer neighbors? No one here has actually contemplated the possibility that the good citizens of the UK might have made the right call here.

None of this has to be litigated in a courtroom any more than it has been. Leave has been found guilty of cheating and the government doesn't have to ask a court's permission for a new referendum. What we're arguing over is whether a new referendum would be ethical given the circumstances of the last. (As for the bitching/gym workout/sore loser part, I've had that from Sap already and it still doesn't an argument make. Whether I'm a disgruntled remain voter (which I'm not, I'm not even British) or an objective outside observer or whatever in-between makes no difference here).

If the UK's exit from the EU turns catastrophic, they'll just reenter later. It's not like the EU nations are unforgiving. The real concern is if the UK thrives, how long will Germany hang in there and carry its poorer neighbors? No one here has actually contemplated the possibility that the good citizens of the UK might have made the right call here. — Hanover

Economically, they haven't. According to every study done. For very obvious reasons. The only practical gain here is for those who want less immigration. And the implication that Germany is carrying its poorer neighbours (in the sense of losing money due to being in a club with them) and looking to the UK's example as a possibility to follow is just ridiculous. Germany as the world's third biggest exporter needs easily-accessible markets for its goods. The Euros it pays in to develop and grow these local markets are more than paid back by the increasing purchasing power of the poorer countries it's "carrying". That's why it's been so pro-European all this time. Not because it doesn't know what it's doing, but because, unlike the UK, it does. And exit from the EU would be even more devastating for it than for Britain.

Do you honestly think there's any sort of Brexit that would command a majority of the British people? — Pattern-chaser


But, irrespective of my answer to that question, the fact of the matter is... — S

I'd hoped for an answer to the question, not tired propaganda. :confused: The problem now, today, is that there is no solution that will satisfy enough of us for it to be considered acceptable. Do you dispute this?

What we're arguing over is whether a new referendum would be ethical given the circumstances of the last. (As for the bitching/gym workout/sore loser part, I've had that from Sap already and it still doesn't an argument make — Baden

And I say it's unethical to demand a new vote because you lost pretty much fair and square. Nothing's perfect of course. I'm less troubled by misstatements and misrepresentations during the campaign than I am cheating during the process (like stuffing the ballot box or blocking votes). Voting is a free for all, and everyone has to exercise their due diligence in deciding how to vote. That's what democracy is.

Whether I'm a disgruntled remain voter (which I'm not, I'm not even British) or an objective outside observer or whatever in-between makes no difference here). — Baden

Which brings up the point of why the Irish were allowed to Irisexit from the UK when it's fairly obvious that it cost them economically, yet we all know that economics should always be the primary driver in determining whether a nation seeks sovereignty, right? I think Ireland's doing ok now, but I don't know if anyone is left.

The Euros it pays in to develop and grow these local markets are more than paid back by the increasing purchasing power of the poorer countries it's "carrying". — Baden

This is sort of the karmic theory of economics where when you help out your neighbors, fairness rains from the heavens and everyone does well. What actually is happening is that the Euro is undervalued compared to what a single nation deutschmark would be and that has allowed Germany to increase its exports and profit handsomely . https://economicquestions.org/germany-unfair-trade-advantages/ The argument isn't that Germany has propped up its weaker neighbors and thereby permitted them to become worthy customers now enjoying previously unforeseen wealth, but it is that Germany is unfairly benefiting from a relatively weak Euro and making less competitive nations even less competitive.

That's what I have gleaned from my good 20 minute Google investment into European economic theory at least.

And I say it's unethical to demand a new vote because you lost pretty much fair and square — Hanover

Except it wasn't fair and square. Leave criminally cheated. I think I mentioned that several times.

Which brings up the point of why the Irish were allowed to Irisexit from the UK when it's fairly obvious that it cost them economically — Hanover

Wtf?

This is sort of the karmic theory of economics where when you help out your neighbors, fairness rains from the heavens and everyone does well. — Hanover

Wtf?

That's what I have gleaned from my good 20 minute Google investment into European economic theory at least. — Hanover

At least you're no longer claiming Germany would benefit from leaving the EU, which is progress I suppose. Maybe next try Googling "Ireland" +"History" + "Colonisation" + "For dummies" or some variation thereof.

(If all this is not sufficiently patronising btw, please let me know. I'm only in first gear here.)

If the UK's exit from the EU turns catastrophic, they'll just reenter later. It's not like the EU nations are unforgiving. — Hanover

I wonder what makes you think that? I am old enough to remember when DeGaulle blocked the UK application to join the EEC as then was for many years, and having lived in France, I think the sentiment there will be fairly unforgiving, as the UK has not been an enthusiastic supporter of the project, but typically the awkward one, demanding special arrangements and exemptions. If I was the EU, it'd be a cold day in hell before I let the UK back in.

After 1000 years of annoying the French, what do the English expect?

Except it wasn't fair and square. Leave criminally cheated. I think I mentioned that several times. — Baden

There are allegations that Leave broke rules regarding the spending cap, but it's also clear that Remain spent more than Leave and benefited from a government funded leaflet supporting their cause. https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/03/27/did-vote-leave-cheat-to-win-the-brexit-referendum . As I've said, I'm not terribly worried about such violations because at the end of the day the will of the people was presented. Had votes been thrown away or people voted twice, then I'd care. I also have a general problem with funding caps because it violates my First Amendment sensibilities. Democracy, voting, free speech, and free press, in their purest and finest forms, are shouting matches.

At least you're no longer claiming Germany would benefit from leaving the EU, which is progress I suppose. Maybe next try Googling "Ireland" +"History" + "Colonisation" + "For dummies" or some variation thereof. — Baden

My references to Ireland's exit was only to make the point that the value of autonomy goes far beyond economic gain. That is, even if it could be shown unequivocally that the UK will suffer economically from leaving, that's likely not going to matter to the Leave movement because their decision was not driven by economic pragmatics. If the US could form a special economic alliance with Germany, for example, that would most likely lead to greater economic prosperity, but it would also grant greater power to Berlin in deciding American economic policy, there'd be a 0% chance it'd be accepted by America. It feels very much like that is what is going on in the UK right now, and for that reason I think all these economic doom arguments miss the point. Leave isn't basing their decision on the economy alone, which shouldn't be surprising. Most nations are motivated by a sense of kinship, mutual values, history, and all sorts of other things that demand self-governance. I also think that those who wish to stay will portray Leave's desire to protect the special substance that is Britain as being xenophobic and racist, and that will only strengthen Leave's resolve. I know how this ends. Trump gets elected.

I wonder what makes you think that? I am old enough to remember when DeGaulle blocked the UK application to join the EEC as then was for many years, and having lived in France, I think the sentiment there will be fairly unforgiving, as the UK has not been an enthusiastic supporter of the project, but typically the awkward one, demanding special arrangements and exemptions. If I was the EU, it'd be a cold day in hell before I let the UK back in. — unenlightened

I'd like to think we still have an ideologically principled and spiteful Europe that hands out vindictive punishments that damages its own self interests. It sounds very old school American, and I would gain much respect for France if it told the UK to fuck off for having left the party in the first place and they can't just come back now because they've gotten all lonely. My thinking is that newfangled Europe has lost its fangs, but maybe I'm wrong.

At least you're no longer claiming Germany would benefit from leaving the EU, which is progress I suppose. — Baden

Sure, but it's not as you said, which was that Germany had economically propped up poorer European nations and that created an overall more prosperous Europe. What appears to be happening is that the single currency is allowing Germany to dominate the poorer nations and greatly increase its exports. You were arguing that the EU helped Germany because kumbaya principles were at play. It seems like something more sophisticated and manipulative is at play.

What's clear from the above (again) is that referenda are terrible to gauge voter preferences. Some issues with it:

1. complex problems are reduced to yes/no options (and if you don't know, vote no)
2. it is not realistic to expect regular people to make informed decisions, or as informed as representatives in parliament
3. you can't suggest amendments or improvements to either option
4. considering the complexity behind the actual question, how is "the will of the people" to be interpreted?

Especially on no. 4 there's an extensive discussion. Some say the will of the people needs to be respected. But was a leave vote one against immigration? For sovereignty? Against the EU? Fishing rights? Against the then current UK government? For UKIP? etc. etc.

In my view the outcome AND the fact there were lies and people were badly informed are immaterial as the referendum should be totally ignored in light of the fact nobody knows what the fuck the question meant when they voted and nobody knows what it was that the voters voted for or against.

If you really want to have a referendum that means something, you ask the following question: "What's your biggest worry that you think the government should solve?"

I'd hoped for an answer to the question, not tired propaganda. :confused: The problem now, today, is that there is no solution that will satisfy enough of us for it to be considered acceptable. Do you dispute this? — Pattern-chaser

Tired propaganda?! What are you on about? I answered your question, it just obviously went over your head. The answer to your last question was yes, I do honestly think that there is a sort of Brexit that would command a majority of the British people, and that would be a Brexit whereby we strike a deal with the EU instead of leaving without one. But beyond that, what your question is getting at would be trickier to answer, as it will depend on what kind of deal the majority would accept and whether it can be successfully negotiated.

And to answer your new question - and I do hope that you pay closer attention this time - yes, I do dispute your claim that there is no solution that will satisfy enough of us for it to be considered acceptable, and I dispute it on the basis that neither you nor anyone else can know that, we can only make predictions.

Of course none of us can predict: we can't and don't know the future. But it doesn't take much consideration to realise that the country, and all of its political parties remain split (roughly) evenly. The majorities that exist are small enough to (more or less) ignore.

A solution that would be acceptable to 75% of us would be a good start, 90% would be better. With a sizeable majority, the minority who lost can see that their beliefs are not shared by everyone, and are willing to accept our society's overall course. But 52-48, if it is still that? It isn't enough to support a solution that is generally accepted by us all. And this is my point.

This argument still rages because we cannot seem to reach any kind of consensus. As long as that continues, we are stuffed. And I can't see a solution with any promise of acceptance by more than the tiniest of majorities (e.g. 52-48 = 4%). Can you? :chin:

Please bear in mind that, in the fateful referendum, 17.4m voted Leave, 16.1m voted Remain and 12.9m chose not to exercise their vote. This is a very balanced thing, not a decisive victory. If it was (decisive), we wouldn't have a problem.

That is, even if it could be shown unequivocally that the UK will suffer economically from leaving, that's likely not going to matter to the Leave movement because their decision was not driven by economic pragmatics. — Hanover

Odd then that the Leave campaign focused so much—in what turned out to be a very effective lie—on the money that was spent on the EU and how that could be saved and given to the health service.

Leave isn't basing their decision on the economy alone, which shouldn't be surprising. — Hanover

No-one said they were. My point on the economy would be that Leave seriously misled people about the negative ramifications of leaving. And this does matter to a significant number of Leave voters, which is illustrated by the poll numbers (see my post above) which show millions of them now changing their minds (potentially enough to reverse the referendum result if it's rerun) and utter panic among politicians as Britain faces economic chaos in a no-deal scenario (which is now the most likely Brexit outcome with May's deal having been rejected and the EU refusing further negotiations).

So obviously, some Leave voters based their decision more on economic issues and others more on issues of immigration and others on some fuzzy notion of not wanting to be run by EU bureaucrats. I'm not disputing there's a mix.

I also think that those who wish to stay will portray Leave's desire to protect the special substance that is Britain... — Hanover

Britain has been in the European club since the 1970s; it didn't suddenly become less special on joining and it won't suddenly become more special on leaving. What it will become, according to every analysis, is weaker politically and economically. But then I suppose it depends what you mean by "special". If "special" means less engaged with its neighbours, more insular, and less diverse then yes, it will be that, and to some people that will be a positive that outweighs other considerations. And if enough of them take that view then a re-run of the referendum will deliver the same result. But I suspect they won't and that's where the objections to re-running the referendum lie, not in any ethical or democratic basis, but in the hope that the British have been irreversibly duped into a self-destructive decision.

Odd then that the Leave campaign focused so much—in what turned out to be a very effective lie—on the money that was spent on the EU and how that could be saved and given to the health service. — Baden

A lie, assuming it was one, isn't a campaign violation. It's just what happens in political events. If you overturned every election every time a lie were found, we'd never have had a single leader.

But I suspect they won't and that's where the objections to re-running the referendum lie, not in any ethical or democratic basis, but in the hope that the British have been irreversibly duped into a self-destructive decision. — Baden

If the liars won, blame the truth tellers for having not gotten their message out. That's what these contests are. You don't get a do-over because one side lied.