My understanding is the vote was
It was specifically non-binding
Was not a super majority
There was no definition of what was being proposed (Brexit means brexit...)
Not sure I see that as a democratic process, more a survey.
It seems self-evident to me that a set of people exists that wants Brexit with a "good" deal, but does not want "no-deal" Brexit. Which way do you think those people voted on the original non-binding referendum? Which way do you think those people would vote on a second referendum, with the actual choice between "no-deal" and "remain"?
It is also self-evident that the same people okay with "no-deal" Brexit voted "Leave" on the original referendum. Suppose a second referendum is held, and "Remain" wins because the "good-deal" Brexiters above are no longer voting with these "no-deal" Brexiters. Weren't the "no-deal" Brexiters a minority the whole time? Why should this minority get what they want, at the expense of the majority? That's the current trajectory.
As far as the last part of the final sentence goes, one could also make a similar argument that the remain side should have shown some responsibility with regards to not utterly destroying the negotiating position in order to purposefully sabotage Brexit such that it becomes unsalvageable. But hey, them's the breaks and here we are.
I don't know what happened to make people so sure that the other side is always either evil or was tricked into its position, but it seems to be the way these days. Sometimes people just disagree. Sometimes they even have perfectly understandable reasons for feeling that way. We would all do well to presume our personal objective "rightness" a little less often in this day and age.
I do literally mean literally. Maybe I am wilfully ignorant then.
>> There's a significant minority who are more than happy with the idea of a no-deal Brexit and who voted for it with the understanding that may be the outcome.
See, I just don't believe that part. I don't believe that 3 years ago in 2016 there was any significant(or even greater than >1000) number of people who understood that if nothing is negotiated with the EU the UK will leave on WTO terms, who fully understood what that meant for the British trade position and who were still happy to proceed. Sure there is a lot of people who say that nowadays, but I just don't believe there was enough information about this 3 years ago for anyone but the most politically and economically engaged people to make such a choice and realistically be happy with a no-deal.
>>As far as the last part of the final sentence goes, one could also make a similar argument that the remain side should have shown some responsibility with regards to not utterly destroying the negotiating position in order to purposefully sabotage Brexit such that it becomes unsalvageable.
That just sounds like saying that half of the British society should have just shut up and said nothing for the 3 years while the government was negotiating. That's impossible in a democracy - not only people should be able to voice their opinions and displeasure with what is happening, they should also be able to change their minds about decisions already taken.
Logically speaking, every single person who voted to leave in 2016 either voted for no-deal as a possible mode of leaving or misunderstood the text of the referendum.
> Do you want Britain to remain or leave the EU?
With the accompanying pamphlet stating:
> The government will implement what you decide.
This includes the government negotiating with the EU. If the government must accept any deal the EU offers (because someone dislikes No Deal being on the table) then the EU will offer the worst deal possible, and has done so (the current deal has been rejected by parliament three times).
Other countries, e.g. Switzerland, that use referenda have rules about super-majorities, campaigning and spending, when and if they will become law and so on. Ensures that you don't get vague hand-wavy referendum that is campaigned as "we'll get a deal easily" morphing into WTO terms hard brexit some painful time later.
At least elections have the veneer of election law behind them. Referendum nations have a similar veneer behind referenda - to decide whether it was fairly arrived at, etc. Switzerland not long threw out a result because the electorate had been given some sort of misleading information in the campaign.
Anything would be better than how we did do it, really. :)
Well there's your problem! That's a vague reference. To a lawyer, it might obviously refer to the voter's decision with respect to the immediately preceding question. To the average UK voter, it might also refer to her decision that she wants blue skies, decent food, and a personal unicorn pony for everyone. It's hard to vote against unicorn ponies.
[EDIT:] Apparently parent just pointlessly made up something, to which I credulously responded. Sorry for the distraction.
And yes, 350M came from the Office of National Statistics, which is pretty solid.
I'm not sure what we're arguing about at this point. The referendum was advisory, that's the legal status of any decision made in it - the government chose to implement the result, but it was at full liberty not to as well. That's irrelevant at this point because things didn't go down that path 3 years ago.
It seems you think people didn't believe the government was going to implement what the people decided.
The people were told the government was going to implement what the people decided.
If you agree with the latter then let's move on with our day.
All I am saying is that now that we know that is the reality on offer, that the British people should get to vote on it. Since no-deal Brexit will lose at the ballot box, I can understand why its supporters want to avoid such a vote.
"If the outcome is bad, that's just a lesson in consequences..."
This patronizing authoritarian attitude that entire nations must be punished when some of their citizens make errors in judgment is itself an example of terrible judgment but comes without consequences.
I think it's patronizing and authoritarian to shove pointless referendums in front of your peoples' face that you have absolutely zero intention of implementing if they vote the way you didn't expect.
I think it's patronizing and authoritarian to tell those people that they don't know what's good for them.
I think it's patronizing and authoritarian to tell them that they didn't really mean the terms that they voted for, as if they aren't capable of drawing conclusions from their actions and dealing with the consequences.
The amount of contempt being expressed, from many sides, for democratic process is disgusting.