700,000 people march for second Brexit referendum

[Spectral]

Is this sarcasm or stupidity?

I would thought the sarcasm was pretty obvious. Tone can be difficult to carry through the internet I suppose, but my statements are intended as a full-throated mockery of the idea that just voting until you get the "right" result is democratic.

- - - Updated - - -

You do know that there was a vote to join the EU which passed? I don't recall any one on the remain side whining pathetically about democracy when a second referendum happened.

Surely you're not under the impression that I'm all that enthusiastic about determining policies via direct democracy, are you?

[Deleted]

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-b...-idUSKCN1MU0JJ

Largest protest in the UK since the Iraq War.

The first thing that came to my mind was frost nova and improved blizzard.

[Ivanstone]

Why do they need a deal at all. You voted to leave the EU, hand in the keys, start making your own money again and be done with them. What the hell is there to negotiate

There's this thing that we refer to as the "Internet". On it we can look up things like the ramifications of a no deal brexit would look like. Its also useful for looking up things like how Britain does not use the Euro and has always printed its own money.

[rogueMatthias]

I just don't get why they're trying to call it "The peoples vote". The people already voted.. and Brexit won. This is more like a bad-losers vote.

Funny how people are declaring how undemocratic it is to stick by the first vote, and demanding that we do it again because Remain lost. Peoples idea of "democracy" is pretty loose when they want it to be.

Keep crying that it was just racists and gullible idiots that didn't understand anything that voted Brexit though, that will definitely fix all the underlying issues that caused it in the first place I'm sure.

[ranzino]

I just don't get why they're trying to call it "The peoples vote". The people already voted.. and Brexit won. This is more like a bad-losers vote.

Funny how people are declaring how undemocratic it is to stick by the first vote, and demanding that we do it again because Remain lost. Peoples idea of "democracy" is pretty loose when they want it to be.

Keep crying that it was just racists and gullible idiots that didn't understand anything that voted Brexit though, that will definitely fix all the underlying issues that caused it in the first place I'm sure.

it was a bad move not to set up a certain threshold to get a clear mandate out of said referendum.

[Noradin]

Seems like they don't respect democracy that much. Just keep pushing for a vote until you get the desired result, eh? Does not seem very democratic if I'm going to be honest.

Only to those who do not understand how democracy works.

[Noradin]

That's not stupid, it's what happens if you continuously push for another vote, then another and then another and then some more votes when it doesn't produce the results you want it to. At some point people will just cease using their vote because it's becoming a nuisance to their daily lives to have to put aside time for it because the other side just can't accept the first result.

So your solution is to only ever vote once for any one thing?

- - - Updated - - -

Not very democratic to demand a second vote when the first was the deciding vote.

And yet the brexit referndum happend, so why not have a third one?
Three times is the charm, right?

[Afrospinach]

Only to those who do not understand how democracy works.

Please do enlighten us.

The EU said they would hold the UK to account of the referendum result, BEFORE the vote was cast.

Democracy means the people are involved in the process of governing their country, nothing more, nothing less. They voted for the people that run the country, they voted in the referendum, this IS democracy. There have now been 2 elections and 1 referendum surrounding the brexit fiasco. They have consistently pushed to where the UK is now.

Not liking the result and pining for a second referendum is not "democracy", it is either pure whining by the losers or buyers remorse by the winners neither of which merit a second vote.

[Deleted]

Isent this just a vote on the terms of brexit, not actually voting if they want to leave or not?

Voting for/against brexit again would be kinda stupid. Just keep revoting and stop when you get the desired result?

[smityx]

And locking people into a vote forever is what exactly?

I know right. Imagine if you had to vote every 4 years for the leader of your country and how you want it ran.

- - - Updated - - -

In an ideal democracy the voting would never end...

Almost everywhere else in the modern world we're using instant apps. There's even software on the market, used by banks and insurance companies where you can INSTANTLY buy a car and insurance if you take a picture of it.

It's ridiculous that our politics aren't with the times and there are still some old fashioned rules being used of a century ago. There is absolutely no good reason why political interaction with the public only can be a once every 4 years thing. It should be constant and instant like everything else is nowadays.

Ah rule by social media. I saw a Orville episode (Majority Rule) with something similar. Rule by trolls and edgelords.

[Ravenblade]

Frankly voting until your result is right up your alley sets a dangerous precedent because this could be repeated for any causes, good or bad. National plebiscites especially the ones that could have lasting should not be subject to a simple majority and that was one of the issues in the first case because a lot people didn't take it serious enough and created a national error margin that is now spelling the end for many things that the UK got granted and has a large impact on the EU as a whole (believe it or not - I'd rather have an unruly UK as member than no UK at all). Now it's either having no deal at all or one that would pretty much put the UK behind a sound-proof window - arguably the latter is still the best they could get but that isn't the idea of 'a deal' in the eyes of the leavers. Of course not, because the leavers basically are now realizing that Brexit means asking the EU to give the UK a permanent muzzle - so a bad deal.

[Ravenblade]

I mean the Swiss do it, it seems to be working for them.

Difference being: Switzerland is a consociational democracy whereas most other Western democracies, including the UK, are based on majority (competitive democracies).

[Kuntantee]

Majority wants to exit, this is how democracy works. I also find this whole thing a bit pathetic, really. Seems like Brits have no balls to leave it. Don't get me wrong, I think this was a shit decision.

[Orbitus]

Best thing about Brexit is how politicians (even May wanted to stay in) knew it was a bad idea but decided to stick to a vote that isn't binding whatsoever. They could literally have ignored it. And yet, here we are...

- - - Updated - - -


The difference now would be that people would be voting based on having more knowledge and not the lies they were fed.

Not to mention, I believe the Russians had a hand in spreading lies in that vote as well. https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-senate-report

[Deleted]

Reminder that 1) the referendum was not legally binding and that 2) the Leave option is very open ended, what sort Brexit do people who voted Leave want? Do they want a soft Brexit or a hard Brexit?

Ultimately we don't know what the majority wanted because basing a huge question like Brexit on a boolean yes/no answer is retarded.

The peoples vote should go ahead, and it should be the same as what the Referendum was, not legally binding, but a chance for the British Public to tell the Government what it actually wants, and if what it wants is to Remain, then the Government can work off of that.

Unfortunately, thanks to the horror show that was the lead up to the Referendum, the average voter knew very little about what Brexit actually meant, with one of the most googled phrases on the day after the results being "What does the EU do?". 2 Years on, people know more, and are in more of a position to offer an educated opinion.

[caervek]

Seems like they don't respect democracy that much. Just keep pushing for a vote until you get the desired result, eh?

You have to remember, the original vote was skewed by turnout.

I.E if your country had a referendum on surrendering to the North and letting Kim rule over the entire peninsula, and it passed because only the communists showed up to vote, would you be happy with that outcome?

[Crispin]

How about at least waiting until the thing that was voted for happens before voting on it again. If you vote for something and then after getting it you dont like it, then hold a vote to repeal or rejoin

The EU isnt a bar. There's no "well this sucks, we're going back in". Membership requires the approval of all members of the EU.

Do you think that the Republican states, would approve California rejoining the states if they first left? Or would they get a "get lost libtards!" message?


And saying a new vote isnt democracy, means that you have no fucking idea on what democracy is. The Brexit vote was as vague as it could be, and consisted of lying from the leave part.

Now the Brits have something far more defined to vote for. The initial Brexit vote was more like "Do you want food, yes or no? and yes part promises kobe steaks and cheesecakes", now it's more a "Do you want food? no or yes to a plate of shit with a glass of piss"

Democracy isnt a "ask now and then", had Cameron not been an absolute idiot, he would have secured a second vote when the details were in place.

[caervek]

no, it was the remain argument which made leave win.

This is quite true.

While the Leave campaign did spend the whole time lying through their teeth to try and trick voters into backing them, the only thing the Remain campaign actually achieved was to convince many voters is was such a no brainer they didn't even need to vote lol.

- - - Updated - - -

had Cameron not been an absolute idiot, he would have secured a second vote when the details were in place.

He would also have imposed turnout limits so that the outcome of the most important vote in the country's history couldn't be decided by 37% of voters...

[Slant]

Truly, their enthusiasm for democracy cannot be understated. When you don't get the result you want, keep voting until you do. Ah, democracy!

More seriously, this is probably a good idea at this point. Hopefully a bit of time and a set of poorly handled negotiations triggers enough introspection to override whatever inclination towards spite caused Brits to vote yes previously.

Democracy isn't just about casting a vote. It's every bit as much about casting an informed vote. Information management and education is part of democracy. Having a vote go "in or out" is not democratic, it's a sham. Not giving them the option to vote on the actual outcome instead of a fantasy would be undemocratic in itself.

This isn't about giving them as many votes as they need to "vote right". It's about giving them the chance to vote on the options they actually have, rather than the lies they were told. Don't judge too quickly, you're better than that.

- - - Updated - - -

I think if they left and tried to go back in, it would not be unlikely that a few countries would veto their accession and even if they did not, the EU would likely demand they adopt the Euro if they want to rejoin which they most certainly would not want.

The Euro is not an obligation nor a requirement to join the EU. I don't think anyone would object to the UK rejoining. They share our values, by default they're qualified. What they wouldn't get back is their rebates and exceptionalism.

[Soxoffender]

Seems like they don't respect democracy that much. Just keep pushing for a vote until you get the desired result, eh? Does not seem very democratic if I'm going to be honest.

The arguments for a second vote go something like this:

The original vote was a simple question that ignored the complexities of the situation. Parliament did not discuss the consequences of Brexit and there was no opportunity for them to formulate legislative proposals or negotiating positions ahead of the vote. This meant that the British people were presented with inadequate information with which to reach a decision. May's substanceless "Brexit means Brexit" mantra showed just how hollow the vote was.

Leave was never one alternative and the vote did not endorse a final destination. For example, is May's Chequers plan better or worse than leaving with no deal and trading with the EU on WTO terms? Leavers themselves fundamentally (and often quite viciously) disagree on this and so leaving the EU turns out to be not a simple yes no question but, at the very least, a three-way decision. When the 52% cannot agree agree what they were all voting for how can this truly be described as simple majority rule? We honestly don't know how many people voted remain because they were scared of the WTO option or leave because they were 'sure' that this would never come to pass and on balance marginally preferred something like the Norway Model to the status quo.

Compounding all this, a number of claims made by Vote Leave (and the unofficial leave groups) have been proven to be demonstrably false. People were voting (at least in part) on a lie and, particularly given the closeness of the vote, this should concern people.

And finally, some polls suggest that there has been a shifting of opinion and that a majority now want a second vote:
https://news.sky.com/story/public-op...veals-11453220

I'm not sure I fully agree with these lines of reasoning but they are not inherently anti-democratic.

A lot of people are comparing this to the Iraq war march and I think that highlights one of the problems with a second. Nobody voted for a party that had promised war with Iraq but in the last election 82% of people voted for the two main parties and both of those promised to respect the result of the first referendum. In comparison, the Lib Dems put abandoning Brexit at the heart of their campaign and they lost vote share.