Second vote ? Why not .?

[Kellfire]

Its not my premise. And its not my problem that you don't understand the definition of democracy as written by far more intelligent people than you or i.

As for the rest of your post, you're spot on. But if you want true democracy you are wrong to say a second vote has to be had before enacting the result of the first vote. And that's where you make a choice about a citizen led democracy.

And I look at your last sentence a little quizzically. Do the public know more than they did? There's been lots of opinions and projections but there was before the first vote too. Have some Remainers changed their minds and well as some Leavers changed theirs? I know of two young Remainers who have said they will vote Leave if there's a second vote. Both because they feel the call for a second vote is an affront to democracy. One of them has also stated that she doesn't like the way the EU have behaved.

I didn't say a second vote has to happen. I'm saying that having it would not stop democracy.

And yes, the public certainly know much more and I think any suggestion to the contrary is fanciful at best.

Some protest votes would be reversed in both directions, for sure. But it would still be a democratic referendum.

 

[Liverbirdie]

Because,it is undemocratic (as Murph has said)

You can't tell people that it's a one off vote where the result will lead down a certain path, then when the losers moan you give them a 2nd, 3rd vote

So changing circumstances in government/finance/borders etc should not ever be reacted to - ever?

Ok, as hypothetical of which German car to pick???? - what if the EU states decided to impose massive trade tarriffs on UK goods, and positively encouraged all EU members to not buy British when they can get the same goods from other EU member states, or even internationally. If this was to lead to massive factory closures, back to Maggie-esque 4 million unemployed - what the hell, we're British, we'll muddle through, guv'nor.

As said, what if we hadnt have changed our mind in 1940 after a few years of appeasement?

 

[Hobbit]

I didn't say a second vote has to happen. I'm saying that having it would not stop democracy.

And yes, the public certainly know much more and I think any suggestion to the contrary is fanciful at best.

Some protest votes would be reversed in both directions, for sure. But it would still be a democratic referendum.

*sigh*

Maybe you missed the first sentence in my post you quoted. May I suggest you look up the definition of democracy, specifically the terms of handing back "agenda control" to the politicians after a vote. But I'll try again; until the result of a vote has been enacted you haven't completed the democratic loop. If you want to disagree with the definition of democracy, fine but don't then hide behind "it would not stop democracy." Yes it would. The continuation of democracy is campaigning for a second vote AFTER the first vote has been enacted.

 

[bluewolf]

Oh Dear! Try re-reading the article!

Earlier on in the article is the following....

"Both Denmark and Irelandheld second referendums on EU treaties within 18 months of the first ballot. There is a widespread perception that these second votes were held at the behest of the EU and that these small states were bullied into doing so.

This fundamentally misrepresents the political dynamics involved. In all cases governments, with the support of their parliaments, engaged in a sophisticated political exercise of managing the cross-cutting dynamics of domestic and EU-level politics. The exercise of national political authority was to the fore."

If you read on, you should note that the article actually confirms my post about the reasons for the original 'No' vote and the changes made to the original Lisbon Treaty.

So the article actually backs up what i posted earlier - and have posted a couple of times before too! Though I'd challenge the connection between the requirement for a 2nd Irish referendum an the wish for a 2nd Brexit one, simply by those who wish to obtain a different result!

Cowen's statement was from a very strong 'negotiating' position! Without a 'Yes' result from a 2nd referendum, the Lisbon Treaty would fail to be ratified!

Oh dear. You've once again fundamentally misunderstood the point your failing to make. The Irish were not constitutionally obliged to have a 2nd referendum. The Government and the EU wanted one. They also needed to agree specific changes to the Treaty before going back to the Polls.

If you're point about The Referendum being obligatory was true then Cowan wouldn't have had any negotiating position. He'd have had an advisory role at best. For him to be in a strong position, he'd have to have had something to offer. Something like..... I don't know.... a 2nd referendum possibly?

 

[Kellfire]

*sigh*

Maybe you missed the first sentence in my post you quoted. May I suggest you look up the definition of democracy, specifically the terms of handing back "agenda control" to the politicians after a vote. But I'll try again; until the result of a vote has been enacted you haven't completed the democratic loop. If you want to disagree with the definition of democracy, fine but don't then hide behind "it would not stop democracy." Yes it would. The continuation of democracy is campaigning for a second vote AFTER the first vote has been enacted.

There is no LEGAL democratic need for the result of the first vote being enacted. There is no loop.

 

[chrisd]

So in your mind a democracy is where a decision is made and adhered to forever?

Now you're just being silly 😁

Everyone knew that this was an in/out vote and, under the rules of this referendum, the powers that be pledged to enact the will of the people. We voted by the required method to leave and democracy requires the will of the people to be carried out. It, in this instance, would be undemocratic to usurp the majority vote by asking for a 2nd, 3rd or say, 4th vote "to get it right" I personally voted in the referendum in the 70's to join the Common Market and once the vote was won no one asked for a second vote - now it's a sign of the times when you don't get what you want just ask for another go!

 

[Lord Tyrion]

There is no LEGAL democratic need for the result of the first vote being enacted. There is no loop.

This is technically correct as the referendum was not put through as a binding result. However, in political and real world terms, the public and politicians voted and campaigned based on it being binding. It is a Mr Loophole approach to use that argument. Technically correct, morally wrong. If the govt do not enact the result then all faith in govt, elections etc would drop off a cliff. Credibility would dissolve.

 

[bluewolf]

Now you're just being silly 😁

Everyone knew that this was an in/out vote and, under the rules of this referendum, the powers that be pledged to enact the will of the people. We voted by the required method to leave and democracy requires the will of the people to be carried out. It, in this instance, would be undemocratic to usurp the majority vote by asking for a 2nd, 3rd or say, 4th vote "to get it right" I personally voted in the referendum in the 70's to join the Common Market and once the vote was won no one asked for a second vote - now it's a sign of the times when you don't get what you want just ask for another go!

Would it be undemocratic? I don't know.

Would it be legal? Yes.

If it's legal, then it's Democratic I suppose. Or maybe not. Who knows.

By the way, I'm not really a fan of the "We didn't whinge" brigade. What do you think got you the referendum in the first place?

 

[drdel]

There is a massive assumption that were a second vote taken on a 'deal' and the public rejected that deal the EU will then say 'fine'?

There is absolutely no guarantee after a second vote everything is as before: in fact we must acknowledge that Juncker, Macron, Barnier and more want much greater integration and tat would mean the UK agreeing to a dramatically increasing budget with less rebate. Adopting the Euro would be highly likely and with that the Bank of England would loose the ability to manage our exchange rate and/or engage in more QE. Our defence and security would need to recognise and be part of the EU Defence Force, etc.

Once Article 50 was tabled and signed the dynamics of the UK and EU irreversibly changed just by having a second vote in the UK (on what we don't know) doesn't reset the clock to pre-Art 50!!

 

[chrisd]

So changing circumstances in government/finance/borders etc should not ever be reacted to - ever?

Ok, as hypothetical of which German car to pick???? - what if the EU states decided to impose massive trade tarriffs on UK goods, and positively encouraged all EU members to not buy British when they can get the same goods from other EU member states, or even internationally. If this was to lead to massive factory closures, back to Maggie-esque 4 million unemployed - what the hell, we're British, we'll muddle through, guv'nor.

As said, what if we hadnt have changed our mind in 1940 after a few years of appeasement?

I don't see what 'has changed' we are in the negotiating stage, nothing was known about government/finance/boarders when we voted so let's see what they decide as "The deal" surely you're not suggesting that you, I, or anyone knows what will be agreed as a divorce at this stage? I'm not sure that I'd want to look at staying in just to satisfy a bunch of unelected EU wassocks who think negotiating is just a case of saying "no" and threatening us.

I haven't been involved in the "car" discussion but the Germans would suffer hugely if we didn't buy their cars and I'm pretty sure as the Germans and French own the EU they wouldn't put up with that scenario - we, of course, could by Japanese cars assembled in this country and provide valuable employment

I really don't see what 1940 has to do with a 2nd Brexit vote

 

[Foxholer]

Oh dear. You've once again fundamentally misunderstood the point your failing to make. The Irish were not constitutionally obliged to have a 2nd referendum. The Government and the EU wanted one. They also needed to agree specific changes to the Treaty before going back to the Polls.
...

Yes they were! Either on acceptance of the Lisbon Treaty (with amendments that made it more likely for a 'Yes' result) or, perhaps, for withdrawl from the EU (IREXIT) - as that was the consequence of not accepting the Lisbon Treaty and the existing EU related amendments in the Irish Constitution!

But i agree - the Irish Ggovernment and the EU preferred a 2nd Lisbon Treaty referendum to an IREXIT one and recognising/being convinced of the need for specific changes for a 'Yes' result, made those changes! Cowen's quote was part of his, successful, argument for the EU to make (Ireland related/specific) changes to increase the likelihood of a 'Yes' result!

...
If you're point about The Referendum being obligatory was true then Cowan wouldn't have had any negotiating position. He'd have had an advisory role at best. For him to be in a strong position, he'd have to have had something to offer. Something like..... I don't know.... a 2nd referendum possibly?

Well, he was in a very strong position - the Lisbon treaty was in limbo until/unless Ireland obtained a 'Yes' result at a 2nd referendum or left the EU (via a referendum and long period of exit negotiation of course - as Article 50 only 'arrived' as part of Lisbon Treaty!).

 

[Hobbit]

There is no LEGAL democratic need for the result of the first vote being enacted. There is no loop.

Now you're just being silly 😁

Everyone knew that this was an in/out vote and, under the rules of this referendum, the powers that be pledged to enact the will of the people. We voted by the required method to leave and democracy requires the will of the people to be carried out. It, in this instance, would be undemocratic to usurp the majority vote by asking for a 2nd, 3rd or say, 4th vote "to get it right" I personally voted in the referendum in the 70's to join the Common Market and once the vote was won no one asked for a second vote - now it's a sign of the times when you don't get what you want just ask for another go!

This is technically correct as the referendum was not put through as a binding result. However, in political and real world terms, the public and politicians voted and campaigned based on it being binding. It is a Mr Loophole approach to use that argument. Technically correct, morally wrong. If the govt do not enact the result then all faith in govt, elections etc would drop off a cliff. Credibility would dissolve.

Pretty much answers the question of democracy and the need to enact the result. Some might say its a stupid decision, whilst others will say its the best opportunity the UK has had in several generations. Personally, I'm a Remainer, and from a very selfish standpoint. Being newly resident here in Spain, how this pans out affects me greatly. Healthcare, pensions, travel and even the right to vote in local elections. However, I respect the vote, and democracy.

Do I think its good for the UK? Not in the short term. Do I think it will be long term? Possibly.

 

[Foxholer]

There is a massive assumption that were a second vote taken on a 'deal' and the public rejected that deal the EU will then say 'fine'?
...

Indeed, a massive assumption! I don't believe the EU would say 'fine'! That is, after all what the 'negotiations' have been all about!

So, that wouldn't be an problem for the EU. It would be a UK Government problem - as to what to do next, when the EU says 'no more negotiation'!

...
There is absolutely no guarantee after a second vote everything is as before: in fact we must acknowledge that Juncker, Macron, Barnier and more want much greater integration and tat would mean the UK agreeing to a dramatically increasing budget with less rebate. Adopting the Euro would be highly likely and with that the Bank of England would loose the ability to manage our exchange rate and/or engage in more QE. Our defence and security would need to recognise and be part of the EU Defence Force, etc.
...

Agreed. But unlikely imo - as (apart from a likely increase in contribution requirements) that would very likely trigger another pretty convincing calls for (another) Brexit!

I believe you are scaremongering somewhat! I don't believe adopting the Euro would be part of any (initial) 'back to the fold deal'. I'm definitely anti any UK involvement in an expansion of' 'EU Defence Force' though - something I've always considered 'too federalistic' for the EU to run!

 

[Foxholer]

There is no LEGAL democratic need for the result of the first vote being enacted. There is no loop.

Now you're just being silly 😁

Everyone knew that this was an in/out vote and, under the rules of this referendum, the powers that be pledged to enact the will of the people. We voted by the required method to leave and democracy requires the will of the people to be carried out. It, in this instance, would be undemocratic to usurp the majority vote by asking for a 2nd, 3rd or say, 4th vote "to get it right" I personally voted in the referendum in the 70's to join the Common Market and once the vote was won no one asked for a second vote - now it's a sign of the times when you don't get what you want just ask for another go!

This is technically correct as the referendum was not put through as a binding result. However, in political and real world terms, the public and politicians voted and campaigned based on it being binding. It is a Mr Loophole approach to use that argument. Technically correct, morally wrong. If the govt do not enact the result then all faith in govt, elections etc would drop off a cliff. Credibility would dissolve.

Pretty much answers the question of democracy and the need to enact the result. Some might say its a stupid decision, whilst others will say its the best opportunity the UK has had in several generations. Personally, I'm a Remainer, and from a very selfish standpoint. Being newly resident here in Spain, how this pans out affects me greatly. Healthcare, pensions, travel and even the right to vote in local elections. However, I respect the vote, and democracy.

Do I think its good for the UK? Not in the short term. Do I think it will be long term? Possibly.

Notwithstanding the arguments of chrisd and LT (which I agree with) there is nothing within my knowledge of the meaning of 'democracy' that requires the result of a democratic decision (of any sort) to be 'enacted' before another democratic decision reverses/cancels the process.

Should the Government decide - or be convinced - that another referendum is reuired, that would not be un-democratic.

There are probably many 'democratic decisions' that have brought down governments - though most have been enacted first! Thatcher's Poll Tax and Labour's Dodgy Dossier being a couple!

 

[Captainron]

Brexit is going to cause flipping chaos. All our EMEA management is talking about is the worst case scenario. I am very sceptical about this ending well for the person on the street.

We shall just have to wait and see

 

[Fade and Die]

Would it be undemocratic? I don't know.

Would it be legal? Yes.

If it's legal, then it's Democratic I suppose. Or maybe not. Who knows.

By the way, I'm not really a fan of the "We didn't whinge" brigade. What do you think got you the referendum in the first place?

That would be democracy....... but I wouldn’t expect you to understand

 

[bluewolf]

That would be democracy....... but I wouldn’t expect you to understand

I'm interested to know why?

And what you're actually saying is that whinging till you get a referendum is Democracy. And whinging till you get a second referendum is treasonous. Brilliant thinking 👍👍

 

[MegaSteve]

And what you're actually saying is that whinging till you get a referendum is Democracy.

I don't seem to recollect the whinging for a second vote starting immediately after the result to stay in was declared...
It was 40+ years ago mind...

 

[bluewolf]

I don't seem to recollect the whinging for a second vote starting immediately after the result to stay in was declared...
It was 40+ years ago mind...

So your issue is timing?

 

[MegaSteve]

So your issue is timing?

The 'issue' is the demands for a second vote before the result of the latest vote has been enacted...