It would still be hard to have a worse question than 2016 - status quo versus an open-ended wish that could and likely did mean anything to anyone - that was not legally binding so no vote thresholds were set up and no one had any idea what to do when suddenly it was taken to be The End of Democracy for All Time.
Brexit Thread V - The Final Countdown?!?
- Thread starter uppi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- brexit europe united kingdom
- Status
True
The time loss from the politics on the questions will be another act in the drama.
And no-deal has become more likely
But there is a solemn pledge of Labour that they will try real hard to prevent that.
And although it is clear that they can tactical manoeuvre in such ways that they can argue in public statements that it is all May's fault, with BTW more and more Labour members and voters not really believing that anymore... once the no-deal is there things could develop very rapidly towards all directions.
From a chaos that strenghtens Labour (if their Remain base will forgive the Labour leadership for not being clear on Remain/new referendum) offering various choices for Labour...
... or to a free marketeer path with unfavorable very fast intermediate WTO deals from scratch. With each deal made, taking the UK further away from a close EU relation AND from a customs union (so much in the banner of Corbyn).
Last edited:
That's already been done once.
The way things are headed right now, Brexit will be the end of democracy; at least a partial end.
At least it is good that magically there is no other crisis ongoing. Apparently all is well in the eu. Chance, i am sure; all of the criseis were real and not at all artificial. Meanwhile, the tens of new taxes here and the pos gov's buying off civil servants with big bonuses seems ok too.
Democracy always wins, even when it doesnt exist.
Democracy always wins, even when it doesnt exist.
EnglishEdward
Deity
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
The 2016 referendum was leave or remain.
If a second referendum just asked the same question it would not solve anything. It would not give a mandate for the type of Brexit if leave won again, so it is quite possible that parliament would still be unable to agree on the type of Brexit.
If Remain won by a small margin leave would start the campaign for a third referendum, claiming that most Brexiteers wanted the May deal and not the Mogg no deal. They would claim they were not given the opportunity to vote on the best Brexit.
So you have to have three options Mogg, May or Stay. But then the question has to be agreed.
And the form of the vote. FPTP, STV or a runoff after one is eliminated.
You can't really have two rounds in the same ref. And if it has 3 options the only workable (albeit still problematic) way would be to ask for the one remain option to have at least 50% if it is going to hold.
Tbh, this isnt a very elegant option either. Refs almost always are just binary.
I agree a runoff would be an absurd way to do it. Still some people have suggested it.
I wouldn't agree that the bar for remain should be set higher than the other 2 options. I'd prefer STV.
Whatever option was selected and whatever the result you'll still get people complaining and saying it was unfair but STV would probably get the least disliked version selected.
A binary vote, whatever the options chosen would still leave a lot of people unhappy.
Well, if (say) 49% would choose remain, with the other 51% split between may brexit and no deal brexit, it can't realistically be said that the public changed its view from leave to remain
Which is why you would use STV. The votes from whichever option got least votes would go to the other options depending on the 2nd preference chosen.
You can't assume people who prefer May's deal would chose No Deal over Remain either.
How would stv work? Would having a second option be mandatory? Cause in that case you would see all kinds of tactical voting, particularly from remainers who dont want any brexit at all.
Imo it wont really be agreed upon- and in this case for good reason too!
I think that if we rule out the "drunken stupor shameles remorse" aka "remain without ref to back it", uk really only has left the option of a general election, but after 29 march, with the parties making obvious their prefered type of brexit.
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
Both parties are split. They will not be able to state their preferred type of Brexit.
I think the point of STV is that it encourages tactical voting but tactical voting occurs in all systems, even FPTP. Remainers can't vote tactically, theres only 1 option that allows Remain. The only people who could vote tactically are those who wanted Brexit but not at the cost of either of the Brexit options.
The problem is that if (eg) no deal brexit has no chance of having more votes than either of the other two options, then remainers choosing it as second choice may tactically rob may brexit of votes in the immediate second counting (?).
I dont think that it would make sense to ask less than 50% + 1 vote for remain to hold. Imo any ref should only have two options. Maybe again remain/leave, with some provision that the result should stand for (at least) x years.
Tbh, by now i dont think you will get a second ref. It wont allow for remain after 29 march & may only cares for a vote (ref or not) on may vs no deal brexit.
I am sad that britain allowed blairite clowns to ressurect as the spectre of fabled full cancelation of brexit. This is provincial and looks very bad. The ecj played its role nicely, though.
I dont think that it would make sense to ask less than 50% + 1 vote for remain to hold. Imo any ref should only have two options. Maybe again remain/leave, with some provision that the result should stand for (at least) x years.
Tbh, by now i dont think you will get a second ref. It wont allow for remain after 29 march & may only cares for a vote (ref or not) on may vs no deal brexit.
I am sad that britain allowed blairite clowns to ressurect as the spectre of fabled full cancelation of brexit. This is provincial and looks very bad. The ecj played its role nicely, though.
Whilst you can make a law saying that it can't be repealed for X number of years, Parliament can vote simply to override that (as seen when allowing the 2017 general election). The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty is such that no future parliament can ever be constrained by an earlier one.
The problem is that if any option has more votes then the transferable vote might result in tactical voting defeating the option that had most votes in the 1st round, but thats due to there not being a majority supporting any of the options. Not sure why you think Remain should be specially handicapped.
I agree a 2nd referendum is becoming increasingly unlikely. May is deliberately trying to limit the choices in the hope that everybody except the lunatic fringe will then support her deal.
A 2nd referendum has a lot of support beyond Blairites and compared to the idiocy of the Tories and Corbyn with his magic renegotiation is relatively sane.
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
Kyriakos does not like the EU.
Can you make a law that needs a certain qualified majority as well ?
Like the law is xyz AND needs a 67%+ majority to pass AND needs a 67%+ majority to be repealed within X number of years
that's a bit a short cut to changing constitution laws in NL:
we need a 50+% majority in both chambers to pass a new constitutional law as official initiative and then after the lawmakers chamber is newly chosen from a new election, it needs a 67+% majority in both chambers.
(Do mind when we would be in a real hurry to pass a change in the constitution, we can dissolve the government and hold new elections for the lawmakers chamber (de Tweede Kamer).
Full sovereignity of the institutions but NOT of the sitting whim of the moment without the people having its vote as well through the normal representative process.
It is the same here for laws changing the constitution; you need 2/3 of all mps voting for such a change.
(Continued & Re @Silurian )
But britain has no written constitution.
It is the fyrom of constitutional traits: no fixed abode and only a mythical basis to draw upon.
- Status
