caffeinatedzombeh on 15/1/2019 at 20:32
One of many problems with it, other significant ones being what the question would be and whether it's actually possible to organise one in the rather small amount of time available.
That various people who want a particular outcome have spent a lot of money campaigning for one doesn't mean anyone else is especially keen on the idea or that they'd get the result they want.
Pyrian on 15/1/2019 at 21:06
Quote Posted by Medlar
Democracy demands good losers.
Yes... But I'm not sure that's the situation here. What's incumbent upon losers in a Democracy is to gracefully get out of the way. Democracy also demands good winners - arguably quite a bit more important in most cases - and the people who championed Brexit in the first place can't make it palatable in its specifics.
heywood on 15/1/2019 at 21:30
I think this was totally predictable. Despite their public pronouncements, the EU and UK government have been quietly preparing for a Brexit to happen without a comprehensive deal, which made today's vote a low stakes affair where MPs could vote their conscience/make a stand.
If May loses tomorrow's confidence vote, which seems to be the most likely outcome, anything could happen. There might be new elections that Labour wins and Brexit is off. Or the Conservative party might retain power with a more conservative leader who tries to negotiate a harder Brexit. Or you might end up with the soft Brexit that May worked for, but implemented through little mini-deals between the bureaucrats without ever coming to Parliament as a comprehensive package.
SD on 16/1/2019 at 01:24
Quote Posted by Medlar
The problem of a second referendum of course; where does it end? The best of 3 or 5. Democracy demands good losers.
I think it needs good voters more.
SD on 16/1/2019 at 01:29
Quote Posted by heywood
If May loses tomorrow's confidence vote, which seems to be the most likely outcome, anything could happen. There might be new elections that Labour wins and Brexit is off. Or the Conservative party might retain power with a more conservative leader who tries to negotiate a harder Brexit. Or you might end up with the soft Brexit that May worked for, but implemented through little mini-deals between the bureaucrats without ever coming to Parliament as a comprehensive package.
She won't lose the confidence vote.
Pyrian on 16/1/2019 at 01:54
So... No deal Brexit is a go, then?
Slasher on 16/1/2019 at 02:23
Mexico will now pay for the wall between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Starker on 16/1/2019 at 03:32
Quote Posted by heywood
There might be new elections that Labour wins and Brexit is off.
Labour has said it would respect the results of the referendum and seek a tariff-free customs union with the EU and some unspecified amount of access to the single market.
N'Al on 16/1/2019 at 05:40
Quote Posted by Slasher
Mexico will now pay for the wall between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Quite frankly, this is probably the most coherent thing that has been said since this whole Brexit malarkey got started.
demagogue on 16/1/2019 at 08:55
Quote Posted by Slasher
Mexico will now pay for the wall between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
/Golf clap, smile and nod./ This is the answer I came here for.
As for the democracy math, how many referenda are enough, my intuition is this isn't a issue fit for taking to the public to begin with because it's so technical, involved, and contradiciton-ridden through and through. It takes people dedicated to public service working it out with reflection and debate over a long period. It's fit for legislative treatment. So the answer is 0 referenda are best. And the most legitimate way to get that is +1 -1 to get you back to the zero status quo, and then never touch the issue with a referendum again. When parliament figures out what it wants to do, then they have the democratic power to do it. So it's not like the issue isn't democratic. (Of course the fact that the cabinet / parliament can't square the circle after months of work is part of the reason why this should be left to them. It points to the real policy issues involved which vox populi magic doesn't just make disappear.)
There's some grounds for it. There's a saying we have in US Constitutional law, the constitution (or you could say democracy & constitutional norms for the UK) isn't a suicide pact. It's one thing for a good loser to admit that his or her vision doesn't match the vision of the majority. That's fine. It's another thing when a majority enters the country into what turns out to be a suicide pact (even if unbeknownst to them). That's when some exception has to step in and do the right thing.
There's other reasons. You could make a good argument the results of the first referendum weren't informed, even biased by incorrect messaging, and the results now would be much more informed now. But that doesn't entirely speak to the core of that point.
Anyway, as an American I don't have a dog in the race. It will make the UK just seem that much more foreign to me (like the US is doing for that matter too). But I'll just be really depressed if there's a no-deal Brexit, the EU starts disintegrating, the US pulls out of NATO as Trump is dying to do and NATO disintegrates, Russia starts snatching up central Asian and Baltic states like there's no tomorrow, the open trading system represented by the WTO disintegrates and states start squabbling over tariffs, which leads to arms races, which leads to ridiculous and avoidable conflicts, which leads to serious human rights violations all over the damn place with impunity for the perpetrators and silence from countries that fancy to call themselves liberal democratic... It's all part of that theme.