Brexit

[HylianSwordsman]

fatslob-:O said:

A vote of no confidence or a general election has the possibility of leading to avoiding brexit altogether and revocation of article 50 is still technically viable but whether it is politically viable is another matter altogether ... 

Even the possibility of an extension may not grant enough time to hold another referendum. It is compulsory that the Electoral Commission has at least 22 weeks to setup a referendum. As I mentioned before 10 weeks minimum is needed for campaigning and the 12 weeks before that is used to test the question in hand ... 

In my experience, something as politically unviable as directly disobeying the first referendum's result by revoking article 50 may as well be treated as altogether impossible from the viewpoint of the common citizen. If something that politically unviable is what you want to happen, you may as well give up, it's just not going to happen. That's interesting about the Electoral Commission. You might be right then, a second referendum might not be possible.

"If they simply redid the first referendum exactly as it was done then in a second referendum, I'd agree with you here."

A new format does not justify inclusion of an option that has been ruled out recently. If we are to preserve the spirit of democracy and the yet to be granted first wishes then remain needs to be excluded if we are to have a second referendum ... 

But this isn't simply a new format I'm suggesting. It's a referendum that clarifies the opinion of the first referendum. What is actually meant by "Leave" and "Remain"? Different people may have had different ideas on it when voting, and it would be dishonest to suggest that their will is being enacted if a better referendum could more clearly demonstrate their will to be contrary to what seemed to be indicated by the first result. Again, the second result could still be for a Brexit, but the mandate would be clarified to justify the precise Brexit desired, with the people fully informed of the precise Brexits that are possible.

"I understand that the point of democracy is to decide action based on incomplete agreement of the people, and that to live in a democracy is to agree to go along with the consequences of not always being on the side of the broader consensus, but the health of democracy is dependent upon the respect of the people for democracy, and when opinion is so evenly split on matters of such importance to the country, it's just not healthy for the democracy."

What is or what isn't healthy for democracy is a matter of debate for the constitutional republics/monarchies out there or thereof to find the right balance. I can tell you what is not democratic is not accepting the result. What you also ask for subsequently is the Singapore/Taiwan/Japan model of democracy but would find a weaker opposition somehow palatable in a liberal democracy? By setting dominant party politics as the precedent you are virtue signalling that you are content with one party dominating the majority of your political life. Are you truly certain that sacrificing one of the cornerstones of a liberal democracy which is a strong opposition for a stronger consensus if it means facing the possibility of seeing republicans as the mandate the majority of the time or even people like Trump? 

Again, I don't feel a second referendum would be a refutation of the first, done the way I proposed, so it wouldn't be "not accepting the results" but rather more like clarifying the will of the people more precisely, as I explained above. I think I understand what you mean about opposition, but I think you may misunderstand me. Do you think I'm suggesting that actual representation, as in the actual makeup of parliament/congress/other legislative body, should be driven by the broadest possible consensus? Because that's not what I meant when I spoke of consensus. I meant consensus for the purposes of mandates for policy preferences of the people, and the policy preferences of their legislative bodies. The makeup of the legislative bodies should be designed to be inclined to include more viewpoints, not less. Our system in the US is horrible for that. But policy preferences of the people should be as accurate as possible to what the people as a whole want, pleasing as many people as possible. Sometimes there are more than two possibilities, and certain options may leave more people happy than others, such that a broader consensus and thus a stronger democratic mandate may be achieved by allowing people to rank their choices like I suggest. It effectively allows everyone to say how everyone would most easily find a compromise, if they had to.

"Well you haven't made much progress there, have you?"

Depends entirely on what you mean by 'progress'. Britain has made quite a bit of progress outside the EU so even if the British people are committed to Brexit, it won't matter if the two parties won't agree on the withdrawal agreement. To the EU, a withdrawal agreement comes first before talking about trade deals ... 

I suppose I'm just not as impressed as you are with the progress made thus far. I think if a hard Brexit had been the voted upon option to begin with, with the full force of British government putting every resource into negotiating more and better trade deals with whomever possible for the entire duration of time from the referendum until March 29th, 2019, the UK would have made much more progress, and you'd all have a clear picture of what your new trade system would look like long before the deadline when things switched over. This would give time for businesses to make whatever changes would best help them adapt.

"America has hardly come to terms with their current president. He's being investigated in various ways and may eventually be impeached. And especially if the American people on the whole want him impeached, he should be impeached. Just as if the people of the UK want to cancel Brexit, they should be allowed to do so."

It's good enough that America isn't waging a civil war over it at the very least so that's pretty much coming to terms with the president.

Well I suppose if that's your standard, then sure, whatever.

If the British people wanted to undo Brexit then do it AFTER the fact that it has happened, not under false pretenses of democracy. Leaver's have waited OVER 41 YEARS for their chance ever since the European Communities membership referendum. It's nearly unbelievable how you're suggesting to break a precedent that the UK has held for decades and proudly at that ... 

1973 Northern Ireland sovereignty (no), 1975 EC membership (yes), 1979 Scottish devolution (no), 1997 Scottish/Welsh devolution (yes), 1998 Greater London Authority/Northern Ireland Belfast (yes), 2004 North East England devolution (no), 2011 Welsh devolution (yes), 2011 alternative vote (no), 2014 Scottish Independence (no) 

In all of the above mentioned cases the results of all previous referendums were respected yet somehow you want undermine democratic principles to make a special case for Brexit ?

Again, the will of the people with the Brexit vote would be clarified with the second referendum, so I don't feel this undermines democratic principles at all, but rather upholds them more faithfully.