But if those "innocent People" were swayed by lies, and might otherwise have voted differently, or chosen not to vote at all? A free and fair vote does not involve lies, and the lead-up to the Brexit vote did. — Pattern-chaser

Your idea of what makes a vote free and fair renders it a practical impossibility. There has never been such a vote, and there never will be. So that's a terrible basis on which to judge this matter.

But there's much more to the current crisis than these lies. They're just part of the problem. :fear: — Pattern-chaser

But the "lies" are part of what's to be expected and there's little that can be done about that.

"lies" are part of what's to be expected — S

No, they aren't. It seems you are happy to tolerate lies, but I'm not. Not lies that have been properly investigated, and court sentences handed out.

True, but the lies have been recognised by our courts as such, and where they contravened our law, cases are already in progress, or already over. People and organisations have been found guilty. — Pattern-chaser

What cases? The Vote Leave case was about overspending, not lying, so that doesn't count.

But you're not bothered because the vote hasn't been formally declared invalid? — Pattern-chaser

No, I'm bothered. But being bothered about it isn't sufficient grounds for abandoning my position. I'd need much stronger grounds than that, given the severity of the matter. This goes way beyond what you or I think, and we should tread carefully.

It looks like you're taking a pretty partisan perspective on all this: defend everything to do with Leave; attack anything that might support Remain. That's a shame. — Pattern-chaser

On the contrary, my views on a second referendum are about as nonpartisan as you can get in terms of Leave and Remain, given that my view has always been that, irrespective of which side wins the referendum, the results should be honoured. My side lost, yet I'm sticking by my guns and refusing to exploit the situation so that my side can gain the upper hand.

Whereas if Remain had won, how many of those now calling for a second referendum would be doing so? :brow:

Reminds me of Trump saying that if he loses the presidential election, then it's rigged.

You're hilarious! It's not a fallacy, it is basic logic.

If I decide to go to the cinema to watch a film, have I decided to go to the cinema? Of course I have.

So if I decide to vote to leave to reduce immigration, have I decided to vote to leave?

Suppose people want to pay a) less taxes, b) less contributions to the EU, c) less immigration, d) economic stability and e) Bwiddish patriotism. It's quite obvious that a, b, c and d can be reached through other means than leave, yes?

So if we only ask do you want to remain or leave, people are going to have to weigh to what extent their a, b, c and d are reflected in those options. — Benkei

And the majority weighed up the options and decided to leave, so stop saying silly things like that the referendum told us nothing or that the views of the majority aren't reflected in the results. It does tell us something, and the views of the majority are reflected in the results, just not to the extent that you think would be ideal.

face-palm. Now you're doubling down with a false analogy to boot.

Here's another analogy for you. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to either shoot a kid or his mum and you shoot the mum does that make you a mysogynyst? Limit people's autonomy sufficiently and they'll be in favour of all sort of things that they really don't want.

It would be hilarious if the ramifications weren't so serious.

Now you're doubling down with a false analogy to boot. — Benkei

Face palm. It's not supposed to be an analogy. Look at the logical form.

If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to either shoot a kid or his mum and you shoot the mum does that make you a mysogynyst? — Benkei

It means that I've decided to shoot the mum rather than the kid, for whatever reason.

If we had a referendum on who to shoot, mum or kid, and a majority voted to shoot the mum, then, irrespective of their reasons, we at least know what their decision was. We know their conclusion.

In the early 19th Century, the Dutch transitioned to absolute monarchy because of the failure of their republic. They subsequently just eased back to something more republic-like over the next century.

So I think that means the Dutch would see rule-of-law as something one embraces until the shit hits the fan. True?

I'm just pondering the diversity of views on the OP issue.

Eh, you've already just conceded the principle and agreed that a new referendum would be a good idea:

...It would seem like it might be a good idea to ask the electorate if they want to maybe stay and avoid the many downsides of just leaving without terms established. — Bitter Crank

I agree with all of that, but I don't think that now would be the best time. I think that we should give it a bit more time to see whether the pressure of having May's draft withdrawal agreement in its current form voted down will change anything, which I accept seems unlikely, but not impossible. — S

The only difference apparently being you'd like to wait an extra couple of weeks, or at most months, before supporting my position (except in the "unlikely" case something changes). Glad you've come round. So, unless you want to argue with yourself, I think we're done again.

Except:

Baden's argument is that there's enough of a basis to render the referendum results invalid. — S

No, I've argued they're questionable not invalid. That should be clear from my use of qualifiers like "potentially" when talking about the result being changed due to the cheating that went on. And the result being questionable along with the rest of the context is enough to justify a new referendum, particularly with a no-deal being a real threat. But, again, you've conceded the principle of a new referendum being justified in the face of a no-deal, so the ethical argument is basically over.

We've finally arrived. Your point was that according to you the will of the people was to leave. So it should be the will of the people to shoot the mum but we know that's ridiculous. QED.

Frank, to clarify my earlier point about consequences be damned: if I were a politician in Parliament in the UK then I'd happily pursue a solution ignoring the referendum. I'm after all an elected representative in that case and I'm supposed to vote with good conscience based on the information I have. If that means I wouldn't be reelected, so what. If it diminishes trust in the political system for some (even if I'm sure those who want to remain would have an increase in trust), so what. I should do what I think is right and I think that's a simple rule to follow. Brexit is too important to leverage pursuing a personal political career like some have been doing. Boris. Cough. Cough.

Yes, I wasn't clear enough that I was trying to make this point that a referendum every 15 minutes being impractical doesn't mean 2 years is impractical. That some interval being certainly impractical doesn't somehow extend to all intervals being impractical. I'm not sure who originally made the argument that accepting a second referendum would be a slippery slope to voting of Brexit every second of the day, but posters have already mentioned that by this logic only one vote could ever be held about anything. — boethius

I don't know where you're getting that from. The point is that two years isn't long enough, and I would be surprised if anyone genuinely disagreed with that point.

Hanover's rhetorical question, in which he questioned whether it was necessary to hold a referendum every hour, was a criticism of the view that in order to be truly democratic, we need to keep up with a change of public opinion, even without proper parameters in place.

They are not currently declared invalid by a sufficient authority, I'm quite sure no one is arguing that. — boethius

They might not be arguing that, but that's what I'm arguing would be necessary.

I don't know enough about the specific to make an opinion on this point, my main interest is arguing against the idea that a second referendum would be somehow anti-democratic or unethical/unreasonable for the parliament to decide to do. To be clear, I also don't see it as anti-democratic (in itself) to not have a second referendum, the wise representatives can always claim "they know more, even secret intel and negotiations, that can't be made public and they are sure means Brexit can't be undone without damaging the UK" (but this displaces the debate to whether the parliamentary system is sufficiently democratic, but is another debate). — boethius

My argument is not simply that it's anti-democratic, as I agree that that would make no sense with regard to holding another referendum, given that a referendum is democratic in nature. But it would be anti-democratic, in a sense, for any democracy worth its salt to permit referenda to be rerun after only two years, as that would be an example of self-inflicted harm to that democracy, given all of the problems that it would cause. It wouldn't be sustainable. It would be shooting itself in the foot.

Eh, you've already just conceded the principle and agreed that a new referendum would be a good idea:

The only difference apparently being you'd like to wait an extra couple of weeks, or at most months, before supporting my position (except in the "unlikely" case something changes). Glad you've come round. So, unless you want to argue with yourself, I think we're done again. — Baden

Concede? Come round? I think I've been consistent. I don't think that I've ever supported a no deal scenario, and I've said that that would be a worst case scenario, so if my preferred course of action becomes an impossibility, then that would leave me with few options.

That hardly means that I think that it would be a good idea. It would just be better than the alternatives.

No, I've argued they're questionable not invalid. That should be clear from my use of qualifiers like "potentially" when talking about the result being changed due to the cheating that went on. And the result being questionable along with the rest of the context is enough to justify a new referendum, particularly with a no-deal being a real threat. But, again, you've conceded the principle of a new referendum being justified in the face of a no-deal, so the ethical argument is basically over. — Baden

Okay, questionable then. But questionable isn't good enough, the results would need to be invalid - and besides, a rerun would effectively render them invalid anyway.

And again, I haven't conceded anything, I'm just talking about other options in a different way now than I was at an earlier stage, because the situation then wasn't as urgent or seemingly dire as it is now. Back then the prospects looked more hopeful. And a rerun still isn't justified, in my opinion, as things currently stand.

We've finally arrived. Your point was that according to you the will of the people was to leave. So it should be the will of the people to shoot the mum but we know that's ridiculous. QED. — Benkei

We know no such thing. It would be the will of the people to shoot the mum. The only thing that's ridiculous is the unrealistic - outlandish even - nature of the hypothetical, not the actual reasoning behind it. (And you're the one who introduced the scenario of choosing between shooting a mum and her kid into a discussion that's supposed to be about the referendum, so don't blame me if it seems ridiculous in that context). You haven't even come close to refuting my reasoning, but feel free to give it another shot (pun intended).

You've said the most likely scenario is the referendum will be justified within a short period (the deadline, is only a few months away):

Yet you still come out with stuff like this as if you believe it:

But it would be anti-democratic, in a sense, for any democracy worth its salt to permit referenda to be rerun after only two years, as that would be an example of self-inflicted harm to that democracy, given all of the problems that it would cause. It wouldn't be sustainable. It would be shooting itself in the foot. — S

Again, excepting an, in your own words, "unlikely if not impossible" scenario, you've agreed it would be a "good idea" (edit: now you've shifted to "better than the alternatives") to do exactly that. So, having given up the principled arguments for the pragmatics of the likely situation, why do you keep repeating this stuff?

No, I'm bothered. But being bothered about it isn't sufficient grounds for abandoning my position. — S

Yet you did. Then made a half-hearted attempt to unabandon it. Your position, whatever it is, is now utterly incoherent.

So again, having given up the principled arguments for the pragmatics of the likely situation, why do you keep repeating this stuff? — Baden

Because it hasn't come to that yet. The pragmatic option remains hypothetical. I'm not going to jump the gun. And I don't know why you would expect me to.

Yet you did. Then made a half-hearted attempt to unabandon it. Your position, whatever it is, is now utterly incoherent. — Baden

Is it really that difficult for you to grasp that my position has been conditional from the start? That I have considered alternatives if things go tits up? Is your position any different in that respect, or did you place all of your eggs in one basket?

There's nothing inconsistent or incoherent about my position, or at least you haven't shown that there is.

Again, you've said it's most likely you will support a referendum and then you say that supporting a referendum in the same time-frame you are likely to support it is an attack on democracy. And you don't see how you've fallen into self-contradiction? Really?

Let's try again:

...It would seem like it might be a good idea to ask the electorate if they want to maybe stay and avoid the many downsides of just leaving without terms established. [i.e. a good idea to have a new referendum] — Bitter Crank

I agree with all of that, but I don't think that now would be the best time. I think that we should give it a bit more time to see whether the pressure of having May's draft withdrawal agreement in its current form voted down will change anything, which I accept seems unlikely, but not impossible. — S

But it would be anti-democratic, in a sense, for any democracy worth its salt to permit referenda to be rerun after only two years [What you will most likely support], as that would be an example of self-inflicted harm to that democracy, given all of the problems that it would cause. It wouldn't be sustainable. It would be shooting itself in the foot.* — S

*Bolding and text in square brackets mine.

Your position of most likely accepting a new referendum in a short period from now is almost indistinguishable from mine of accepting one now. The only difference is I'm not accusing myself of being anti-democratic.

No, they aren't. It seems you are happy to tolerate lies, but I'm not. Not lies that have been properly investigated, and court sentences handed out. — Pattern-chaser

I don't know what you're referring to. Source?

Let's put it another way @S, when you (most likely) support the new referendum before the no-deal deadline, will you be supporting something anti-democratic or not?

That can be explained. What I said about the timeframe between a referendum and a rerun was a generalisation, and I stand by it. But in this case, as a last resort, it would be an exception to the rule, and I accept the detrimental implications of that, but we both seem to agree that it would be better than a no deal scenario. But I'm not as blasé about the shortcomings of that decision as you are.

If we both agree a referendum is in principle desirable given a no-deal scenario then all the principled (anti-democratic etc) objections go out the window and we're left with accepting the referendum will most likely be justified.

Glad to be in agreement I guess.

Let's put it another way S, when you (most likely) support the new referendum, will you be supporting something anti-democratic or not? — Baden

It would be a self-inflicted harm to a democracy, so yes, I would be supporting something which meets the sense of "anti-democratic" that I mentioned previously. But it would not have gained my support as the ideal course of action.

Well, you can hardly blame others for supporting it either as long as it's not their ideal course of action (it's not mine, for example, I would have preferred if a soft-Brexit deal had been struck), In which case, I don't know what the criticism was.

Well, you can hardly blame others for supporting it either as long as it's not their ideal course of action (it's not mine, for example). In which case, I don't know what the criticism was. — Baden

The criticism is that your support for a second referendum was, and is, premature. Even at this stage, I still don't think that the time is quite right. I still don't support it. Whereas you expressed support for it some time ago.

You should go back and read your own posts. You gave the strong impression you were in principle against rerunning referendums in such short time periods (exactly what you now say you'll most likely support).

Whereas you expressed support for it some time ago. — S

Yes, and I still do. =consistency. :wink: