|
HylianSwordsman said: 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. |
If a second referendum is intended to be a clarification of the first vote then it does not justify the inclusion of a remain option. "Remain" by all accounts was a very well understood option given the question at hand which was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" ...
This means that EU membership is not in the deck of cards so while it might be alright to include a customs union, freedom of movement or some other combinations thereof but EU membership itself must be ruled out in it's entirety to preserve the spirit of Brexit ...
|
HylianSwordsman said: 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. |
Again no EU membership which is what the original question and vote implicated. If you wanted to 'clarify' the will of the people more precisely then only Leave options are on the table as the first referendum ruled out EU membership entirely. It's either no deal, May's deal or a possible opt in for a Norway+/Canada/Switzerland style of deal but nothing else ...
|
HylianSwordsman said: 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. 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. |
The British people had voted no EU membership so that's the end of it, you got it ? People are divided over Brexit but the vote has already been settled previously for it and there's no turning back to the people. What the citizens might not have a consensus on is how they want Brexit handled and the House of Commons also can't come to agreement either on what kind of withdrawal agreement either which comes first for the EU before any trade deals ...
