The difference is that the PM, with Parliaments approval, put this to the people, it wasn’t an unprompted voter initiative.
To submit it to the people, and then to turn around and ignore that result breaks an implicit promise, and erodes the governments legitimacy.
Voters will correctly understand that their opinions only count if they’re the right opinions.
There is an eventual cost to this behavior.
Personally, all the people who knowingly voted to make themselves poorer to change the law to something they agree more with, well, more power to them.
I just think there are like, 3 of those. All the rest voted to either make somebody else poorer, or think it’ll actually make them richer.
Yeah… good luck with that.
Much like many don’t feel that the first referendum has legitimacy, given the lack of a concrete proposal to vote on. But let’s not worry about that.
And they would get to vote again. The difference is they would get the chance to vote on the concrete treaty decision, rather than a nebulous question (i.e., how pretty much every sensible functioning democracy implements referendums). If they feel the same now, then they are free to vote the same.
Yes - I can absolutely see how the most democratic solution is to prevent half your population from stating their preference. /s
Even more democratic: an election which can result in a majority voting for/against Brexit, but still resulting in a government that does the opposite.
wavey
6890
Quick thought experiment: if Leave parties won 60% of the popular vote, and Remain/2ndRef parties won 40% - but due to FPTP the Remain parties formed a majority govt - would you still be as ready to make that concession?
I certainly see this perspective. I guess from my perspective, the government does not and should not have the authority to abdicate its responsibilities, under a representative system, by tossing important matters to the public for a referendum except as a way to get a general sense of opinion.I think a political system that mixes straight-up majority voting on major issues with much more considered and sophisticated representational systems is fundamentally unsound and illogical, but that’s me, I suppose.
They already returned a parliament that clearly didn’t want Brexit at any cost, as evidenced by the behaviour of that parliament. The real problem facing our democracy is the two competing claims for what counts as legitimate government: the referendum or the general election.
Timex
6893
Draxen, doesn’t it worry you that Russia has clearly exerted effort to encourage the UK to leave the EU? That doing so weakens both the UK and the EU, in favor of Russia?
Don’t you feel like you are being manipulated by forces that hate your country?
draxen
6894
I think this is the key part. Do you believe the referendum result is legitimate.
There was a short window of opportunity for the referendum to be declared invalid and for it to be re-ran but this didn’t occur. In fact, the opposite occurred. As @Aceris stated earlier, every politician of any substance declared we must uphold the result and Parliament voted overwhelmingly to invoke article 50. It’s only later that the referendum result was called into question (by those seeking to frustrate Brexit) and the debate on the method of leaving became increasingly strained (thanks in large part to the hard core Brexiteers).
My argument is the referendum was legitimate and the result should be upheld.
Many seem to hold the view that the referendum is invalid because Leave lied during the campaign. I really want to try to avoid the “they lied” argument as it’s futile partisanship but in the effort to portray my view this is the Leave supporter equivalent of Boris’s Brexit Bus.
Yes. I would grudgingly accept that result. I’d still consider it a travesty that the referendum could be thwarted in such a fashion but I would consider the matter settled at that point for a generation. Our political machinery will have run its course and Leave will have lost.
This is not entirely accurate. The Parliament that was returned has been unable to make a decision either way. It is paralyzed. Personally, I don’t think the 2017 referendum was primarily focused on Brexit when compared to the 2019 one. In 2017 Labour was still maintaining that they would respect the referendum result.
From the Labour 2017 election manifesto:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”
This 2019 election is very different. Brexit has been blocked by Parliament (including Boris). I think it’s understood that this election will decide the outcome of Brexit.
In terms of Brexit at any cost? It made some very clear decisions, ruling out no deal repeatedly.
It may be hard to comprehend, but it’s possible to respect the result without wanting Brexit at any cost. For instance, I do not think the sort of Brexit May and Johnson negotiated respected the result at all. We voted to leave by a small margin; respecting that result would mean leaving by a small amount (and not necessarily even that). Not the radical proposals they have instad made.
draxen
6896
Yes, you’re right. My apologies. I read your post quickly and missed the “at any cost”.
Yes, you are right. I agree. Both sides should have come to a compromise. Instead Brexiteers sought the hardest possible Brexit and Remainers attempted to block it. It’s left us at an impasse and with ever increasing bitterness between the two factions.
And of course, if the people had wanted something different, they could have elected a different Parliament. The dangers of having two competing claims to democratic legitimacy…
I think a political system that mixes straight-up majority voting on major issues with much more considered and sophisticated representational systems is fundamentally unsound and illogical, but that’s me, I suppose.
They made that choice though.
No - it is not the key part.
It is entirely possible for the referendum result to be legitimate and valid for the 2016 electorate. And for the electorate of 2019 to have an equally valid contradictory position.
It’s the same way that it is completely valid and legitimate that Scotland did not want to split with the UK in 2014, but may have a different opinion in 2020 or 2021. A vote for Scottish independence does not mean that the previous vote was invalid - merely that changing circumstances has resulted in a change in the electorate’s opinion. That is how democracy works - especially direct democracy.
So your argument is that voiding the referendum six or less months after it had been held would have been more democratically legitimate - and would be more acceptable to the Leave side - than a referendum on the actual terms of leaving four years later? Seriously?
You mean, apart from the fact that Labour is doing everything it can to make this election about anything other than Brexit? And the fact that Parliament has accepted Boris’s deal for deliberation? The fact that SNP is making this another referendum about Scottish independence?
I mean, this doesn’t make sense even under the least bit of scrutiny. Significant numbers of Remainers will vote for Tory candidates, simply because that is their party (I saw polls recently suggesting that >15% of the Tory voters would be Remainers). And Leavers will without a doubt vote for Labour or SNP candidates, simple because doing anything else is unthinkable to them. Regardless of what you think, a significant part of the UK clearly do not agree with you, and won’t be casting their vote based on their feelings about Brexit.
jpinard
6900
I’ve asked him this several times and he conveniently ignores it or says, “Russia didn’t matter”.
Timex
6901
It seems like even if you pretended that Russia’s efforts had no impact on the vote, you would still need to question why it is that Russia wants the UK to leave the EU.
I’ve asked him this several times and he conveniently ignores it or says, “Russia didn’t matter”.
If Russian Twitter bots, and social media accounts, defeated the Remainers, then they must have run the worst campaign known to man.
This is simply the wounded the projecting their defeat on outside forces, rather than trying to actually understand what happened, taking responsibility for it, and trying to understand the people who voted the other way. It’s far simpler to blame outside forces. This is an emotional reaction though, and a self defeating one.
Tim_N
6903
So I recall someone in this thread saying that the liberal democrats and Labour are going to contest very few seats against each other, which you’d think would be essential to having any hope of them forming a coalition government.
Does anyone have good links/data about this?
It seems like even if you pretended that Russia’s efforts had no impact on the vote, you would still need to question why it is that Russia wants the UK to leave the EU.
That’s a logical fallacy, the assumption behind your statement.
Let’s assume that Brexit is good for Russia, you can’t assume that Brexit is somehow, automatically, bad for the UK. Based on that fact alone, it’s an unsubstantiated leap.
It’s fully possible that it could be both good for Russia, and the UK. Or, in so far that it might somehow advance Russia’s interests, it might be bad for the UK, but the UK might experience other gains that would dwarf that injury. There are an infinite range of possibilities, and that might be worth looking at. But you would first need to establish the premise, that it’s good for Russia, and by nature that this is bad for the UK, and this injury is so serious that it outweighs any other interest.
Alstein
6905
My mom says all her friends over there ask this, and my mom is always railing about how minority doctors are ruining health over this- she says all the white doctors flee to the US because they can make more money here due to no socialized medicine
She’s drunk the full Cult 45 and it drives me nuts. The past 4 years drove me into full Armando territory.
We’re fighting a global terror movement when it comes to folks like Trump, Bolsonaro, Johnson, Farage, Putin, and others. We need to destroy it or we will be destroyed.
Tim_N
6906
Agreed, but you have forgotten a key figure which is Xi.
