Wouldn’t it be the best to make another referendum?
Sure! As far as I understand it still isn´t too late entirely there are even movemements to get one going I believe.
But wih everyone responsible being able to back out at this point, this looks like a giant mess as it is.
1 Like
On one hand: yes, because both sides made unfulfilled promises during their campaigns (especially Leave though), and the public didn’t really know what they were getting themselves into.
On the other hand: if we had a second referendum for this, then people might demand second referendums for everything in the future. And then nothing would ever get done.
1 Like
Oh yes, the good ole fear of the creating a precedent! Has also kept overdue changes in the US government from happening for decades.
While not completly unfounded, unfortunatly that mentality also would lead to nothing getting ever done let alone reconsidered.
1 Like
Are you sure about that?
1 Like
Yeah, like I said above. 
1 Like
Hmm… well, overturning a decision from 1791 (like, say, the right to bear arms of the Second Amendment) would have different implications to overturning one from a year ago. In the latter case, nearly all of the people who voted are still around. Telling them to vote again is saying to each of them “your first vote didn’t count”.
Could that diminish the perceived value of a first vote? Could second referendums come to be applied in almost any case, completely reversing the progress - both bad AND good progress - made in between the two voting periods? Who knows. But I can imagine Leavers getting really angry over the first result being declared void, if the result of a second referendum was Remain.
Yeah, sure. But that is bound to happen.
It happens in other fields of democracy, too. There are re-elections in case of unclear outcome or if a goverment fails to work together. You can use all those arguments for that as well. But it happens regulary in democracies all over the world. And I fail to see how this is different.
If a thing doesn´t work out doesn´t mean you have to stick to it only because its advocates wouldn´t like it.
1 Like
What I’m concerned about is people claiming “our rights as voters are under attack”, and the implications that might have if this idea was taken seriously by those in power.
But if second referendums and such have been successful elsewhere, then maybe this isn’t likely to happen.
Well at least I´m sure it´s not bound to happen.
In any case, it would be preferable to get out of the current situation as well as the direction the country is going.
The whole anti europan movements as well as the general tendecy to drift apart further and further lately really worries me. If things go on like that, with the pressure of migration making every single country go their own ways lhe long time peace we now have managed to maintain for over 80 years on the continent and nearby islands is in serious danger.
2 Likes
Well, it was a pretty close call anyway. I am not sure on the legal status of a referendum in UK, but in a lot of countries, the outcome of a referendum is only “advisory” and not binding.
That being said, I think any referendum should have a lower threshold to be not considered undecided.
Three of the pro-leave leaving themselves now… how ironic (and irresponsible). That’s why I hate (most) politicians, because they only care about getting votes/popularity but bail out of the actual work to be done once they’re in the kitchen.
4 Likes
That is my fear as well. Plus, a Europe that isn’t united will not stand a chance when it comes to competing economically. But together, we’re a market of some 500.000.000 people. Definitely a force to be reckoned with.
2 Likes
I think that in democracy politicians work well, if there’s a base of people who care about politics as handling of common things. The lack of interest, participation and sense of common wealth of people brings to politicians which are more egoist and centered on popularity more than effective results of their politics. They are often the mirror of society. Democracy can’t exist without a proper educated demos (people). That said, we live in a period of history of the western world (but I could say the whole globalized world) where two new classes are rising: the rich ones which have the financial power, and are invisible, and the impoverished middle class, which has not the capability to face the other class which is well hidden behind the financial infrastructure. In this new world, it is difficult to let the people find their way and recognize where to choose and direct their action. If you take Europe for example, that’s a mixture between financial policies that are for the financial class, and other policies like directives which are good and beneficial for everyone. Then people of the UK is not absolutely wrong, while EU is not absolutely right. What we call “populism” is from the base the suffering of people which have not the instruments (cultural and/or practical) to face the trasformation of the world in a way that exclude them from the rights people in the nation-states have fought to acquire in the past centuries. I would never blame UK people, I deeply understand them, even if I would have never voted for Brexit, but I would have fought as hell to change this Europe.
2 Likes
While true, I don’t think this is any different in other jurisdictions. Though I guess one issue of the EU is that it is a vehicle for passing laws that would perhaps not go through in any of the individual member states. So I can totally understand that there is resentment.
This growing divide between the rich and the poor is perhaps the biggest danger to democracy. (The other is an ever-growing surveillance apparatus that might be implemented with the best of intentions (*cough*), but woe upon us when it is turned against the populace.)
1 Like
This statement is really important, thanks for sharing with us.
Well, into the boundaries of single nations, some important acquired rights, some important protections could not be avoided. Into the new common home, practically some of those were bypassed. Own currency and customs duties are a way that make unaffordable for external to dismantle the status quo of a country (with its distribution of wealth). While now, under the menace of delocalization, globalization, a country could lose large parts of its productive structure if it doesn’t bend to the will of those who have financial power. Because, while we created a global market, a common currency, we didn’t work to extend global rights (unless we’re talking about civil rights, but they’re a different beast), we lose part of those we had before. You can’t go into a new house, hoping that the foundations will build up themselves.
1 Like
It’s safe to say that globalization as we know it is good for large, multi-national corporations mostly. They’ll produce where it’s cheapest, and move on if things change. They pay taxes where it’s cheapest, and use their advantages to outdo local competition while raking in insanely high profits, which they can then invest into favourable laws and such. (See my comment about curbing lobbyism way up).
Not sure what you have in mind there, but for me that’s an area where national states might actually be getting in the way, so to speak. As long as they are in competition with each other, it’s much too easy for big finance to play one off against the other.
1 Like
You could hold a referendum about whether to hold a second Brexit referendum. Then there would be no question about the legitimacy of a re-referendum.
D.
1 Like
Meanwhile, in Australia:
a political party leader will attend polling booths at tomorrow’s byelection.
50 of them.
At the same time.
As cardboard cutouts.
[insert meme here]
Already seems like some sort of real life meme to me.
2 Likes