I'm sure it will be treated as such by the government. But I'd still want them to ignore a leave vote. That doesn't make me a fascist.

I haven't called you a fascist! It makes you anti-democratic to an extent, and unjustifiably so in my view.

That depends on what counts as good justification. If the country and its people would be better off by staying in the EU then I think that an anti-democractic decision to stay is justified. Others might say that because there is no moral imperative to stay (as there would be against slavery) then such an anti-democratic decision wouldn't be justified.

But then, as I said at the start, I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist, and so it's the former justification that I would consider the most important.

But your position isn't actually pragmatic or right. It'd be pragmatic to recognise that regardless of what you think is right, the referendum results are going to be what ultimately matter. The pragmatic mindset would actually be: "Let's work with what we've got, whatever the result may be". Your view would make sense if this were in fact a fascist state, and the state didn't have to worry about a public backlash. North Korea doesn't have to worry about that sort of thing, because they keep the public tightly oppressed. But here in Great Britain, the consequences of overturning the result would make doing so massively counterproductive. Surely it's pragmatic to avoid large-scale disruption. Your "pragmatic" view would only actually make sense in an "ideal" society devoid from the reality here in Great Britain, where actions like the one you favour have big consequences.

But your position isn't actually pragmatic or right. It'd be pragmatic to recognise that regardless of what you think is right, the referendum results are going to be what ultimately matter. The pragmatic mindset would actually be: "Let's work with what we've got, whatever the result may be". Your view would make sense if this were in fact a fascist state, and the state didn't have to worry about a public backlash. North Korea doesn't have to worry about that sort of thing, because they keep the public tightly oppressed. But here in Great Britain, the consequences of overturning the result would make doing so massively counterproductive. Surely it's pragmatic to avoid large-scale disruption. — Sapientia

I think you're twisting the meaning there (or at least what I intended to mean). All I'm saying is that if the country would be better off in the EU then I would prefer for the government to ignore a leave vote than to accept an advisory referendum. I'd call that a case of pragmatism over principles.

Arguing over whether or not the label I've chosen is perfectly accurate seems like an unimportant semantic quibble.

Of course, if the consequences of ignoring a leave vote outweigh the consequences of leaving then I'd be in favour of leaving. But then the problem you'd have isn't with my anti-democratic pragmatism (as it has seemed up until now), but rather with my belief about what actually is the most practical decision.

I think you're twisting the meaning there (or at least what I intended to mean). All I'm saying is that if the country would be better off in the EU then I would prefer for the government to ignore a leave vote than to accept an advisory referendum. I'd call that a case of pragmatism over principles. — Michael

It might seem that way, but looking at the bigger picture, it isn't pragmatism over principles at all; it's your principle of the state doing what you think is right - despite the consequences vs. practical considerations - which of course include taking the consequences into consideration. And for all intents and purposes, this is not an advisory referendum; it's the real deal.

Of course, if the consequences of ignoring a leave vote outweigh the consequences of leaving then I'd be in favour of leaving. — Michael

You don't have to change which side you favour at the drop of a hat. I can't relate to that mindset. Seems like a superficial reason for changing sides. I would still favour remain, but would think it unfortunate that it didn't go my way and nothing can be done about it, practically speaking.

But then the problem you'd have isn't with my anti-democratic pragmatism (as it has seemed up until now), but rather with my belief about what actually is the most practical decision. — Michael

I take issue with both. I can assure you, I do not condone your take on overruling democratic decisions, except in the most exceptional circumstances.

I do not condone your take on overruling democratic decisions, except in the most exceptional circumstances. — Sapientia

On what grounds? Is there some moral obligation to want the most popular decision implemented? This seems to be the unspoken premise that's driving the criticism against me.

You don't have to change which side you favour at the drop of a hat. I can't relate to that mindset.

That I'm willing to change which side I favour at the drop of a hat simply shows that the reasons I'm giving for supporting my position are genuine and not ad hoc rationalizations.

It might seem that way, but looking at the bigger picture, it isn't pragmatism over principles at all; it's your principle of the state doing what you think is right - despite the consequences vs. practical considerations - which of course include taking the consequences into consideration. And for all intents and purposes, this is not an advisory referendum; it's the real deal.

You just seem to be saying that a pragmatist has a principled support of the practical. That's just a word game. The point is that I'm not going to support the popular opinion simply because I'm committed to the principle of democracy. Instead I'm going to support whatever decision is going to give the country, and so by extension me, the better standard of living.

On what grounds? Is there some moral obligation to want the most popular decision implemented? This seems to be the unspoken premise that's driving the criticism against me. — Michael

For the Nth time, no, you don't have to want it to be implemented, but you ought to respect the results, since this is obviously a democratic decision, despite the redundant technicality that you keep pushing about it being merely advisory and nonbinding. And expressing your desire that the results be overturned is not to respect the results or the democratic process behind the results.

The point is that I'm not going to support the popular opinion simply because I'm committed to the principle of democracy. Instead I'm going to support whatever decision is going to give the country, and so by extension me, the better standard of living. — Michael

You've repeatedly shown that you don't understand the criticism being made here. No one has said that you have to support the popular opinion. The point is about respecting the democratic process behind the referendum, which you do not, because you have no problem undermining it by taking advantage of a loophole, which has no chance of actually happening anyway, so is not even an option.

Funnily enough, I'm also going to support whatever decision I think is going to give the country, and so by extension me, the better standard of living. I think that that is to remain in the EU. I will respect the result, whatever it may be, and not wish it to be overturned by the government, because I accept, as does the Prime Minister and the general public, that the decision is ours and not the government's.

For the Nth time, no, you don't have to want it to be implemented, but you ought to respect the results, since this is obviously a democratic decision, despite the redundant technicality that you keep pushing about it being merely advisory and nonbinding. And expressing your desire that the results be overturned is not to respect the results or the democratic process behind the results.

...

You've repeatedly shown that you don't understand the criticism being made here. No one has said that you have to support the popular opinion. The point is about respecting the democratic process behind the referendum, which you do not, because you have no problem undermining it by taking advantage of a loophole, which has no chance of actually happening anyway, so is not even an option. — Sapientia

I don't understand what you mean by "respecting" the decision. If "you should respect the decision" doesn't mean "you ought to want the decision to be upheld", then how has anything I've said implied that I don't "respect" the decision (whatever that means)?

You've repeatedly shown that you don't understand the criticism being made here

You're right; I don't. It's been hopelessly unclear. You're criticising the fact that I want the government to choose to stay even if the vote favours that we leave but then saying that you're not telling me that I ought to want the government to choose to leave if the vote favours such a thing.

So it seems me that you're just contradicting yourself. You're telling me what I should want but denying that this is what you're doing.

I accept, as does the Prime Minister and the general public, that the decision is ours and not the government's.

Given that the power to enact Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union rests in Parliament (or the government, I don't know which) the above is quite simply false. At best it's one of those abstract claims like "we have a natural right to such-and-such even if the law forbids it". We could get into a philosophical discussion on the merits of such a thing, if you like? Given that I'm not a mystic or theist, I'm going to argue against such airy-fairy nonsense.

The point is about respecting the democratic process behind the referendum

So, assuming you first clarify what it means to "respect" the democratic process, you then have to justify your claim that I ought to do so.

I don't understand what you mean by "respecting" the decision. If "you should respect the decision" doesn't mean "you ought to want the decision to be upheld", then how has anything I've said implied that I don't "respect" the decision (whatever that means)? — Michael

That is basically what it means.

You're right; I don't. It's been hopelessly unclear. You're criticising the fact that I want the government to choose to stay even if the vote favours that we leave but then saying that you're not telling me that I ought to want the government to choose to leave if the vote favours such a thing. — Michael

I don't believe I've been unclear, but it's clear that you're confused, because that isn't what I've done. I'm saying that your decision that it's better to remain in the EU shouldn't change based on the results, but that you should respect the results of the referendum. The government is just the middleman on this issue; merely a mouthpiece of the people. It wouldn't make sense to want the government to choose to leave if you think it's better to remain - this is my point that you seem to be having trouble with. The word "want" is the wrong word to use. I want to remain, I don't want to leave, but I would accept the decision to leave as valid if that is what the people of our nation have voted for. I'm saying that you should feel the same way, not that you should want to leave.

I'm not the only one to make this criticism. Jamalrob also criticised you for wording it in terms of what you want or should want. So that leads me to believe that the fault is not my lack of clarity, but rather your failure to take this criticism regarding the way in which you're phrasing this issue into account.

That is basically what it means. — Sapientia

So you are telling me what I should want? You denied this earlier.

I'm saying that your decision that it's better to remain in the EU shouldn't change based on the results, but that you should respect the results of the referendum. The government is just the middleman on this issue; merely a mouthpiece of the people. It wouldn't make sense to want the government to choose to leave if you think it's better to remain - this is my point that you seem to be having trouble with. The word "want" is the wrong word to use. I want to remain, I don't want to leave, but I would accept the decision to leave as valid if that is what the people of our nation have voted for.

It's still not clear to me what you mean by "respect" and "accept" the decision. I will accept that we voted to leave. I will even accept that the government honours our vote (if they do). But I'd still want the government to ignore such a vote.

So short of arguing that I ought not want this, nothing you're saying seems to make any sense. And if this is what you're saying, you still have to justify such a claim.

But given that "ought" implies "can", and given that we can't choose what to want, it seems to me that any attempted justification is doomed to fail.

I'm not the only one to make this criticism. Jamalrob also criticised you for wording it in terms of what you want or should want. So that leads me to believe that the fault is not my lack of clarity, but rather your failure to take this criticism regarding the way in which you're phrasing this issue into account.

I don't understand this at all. I want the government to ignore a vote to leave. What does it even mean to criticise my phrasing? Is it ungrammatical? Am I using meaningless words?

I'm basically saying the same thing that jamalrob said:

It's not about what you ought to want or not want. The question is if you're willing to accept a democratic decision you don't like and go on to support democratic campaigns to change that policy in the future; or if you'd prefer to disallow or over-rule democratic processes on an issue you're certain about. — jamalrob

What's not to understand?

But I'd still want the government to ignore such a vote. — Michael

That you'd want the government to ignore such a vote means that you do not really respect the result of the referendum or the democratic process. You can't respect a decision and yet seriously want it to be overturned - that's nonsense. If you respect the decision, then such a course would be out of the question. You could wish the vote had gone the other way, but when you desire that the referendum result be overturned, then you're undermining the accepted process. If you want the government to go back on their word and betray the result, yet you think you can respect the decision at the same time, then I'm saying that that is not genuine respect, but merely an outward pretence.

As for justification, what more do I need than that which is already evident. This is a democratic process, that has been made clear by the government. Your loophole doesn't change that. So if you don't like the process, then you are welcome to take no part, but if you do take part, then you are obliged to accept the validity of the result.

What's not to understand? — Sapientia

What I don't understand, as I've repeatedly said, is what it means to "accept" a decision. I can accept that a decision has been made – and nothing I've said implies that I wouldn't accept that it was made – but I don't know what else it would mean.

That you'd want the government to ignore such a vote means that you do not really respect the result of the referendum or the democratic process.

I also don't know what it means to "respect" a decision. And then, depending on what it means, I might not accept your claim that I ought respect it.

If by "respect" you mean "admire", then no, I wouldn't admire the popular decision simply because it's the popular decision, and neither ought I.

If by "respect" you mean "take into consideration", then yes, I would take into consideration the popular decision. But taking into consideration the popular decision does not require that I agree with it – and nor does it require that I want it to be implemented.

Look, I don't know how else to put it. It's simple really. If you respect the result, then you respect the result, and don't desire it to be overturned. If there's a race, and a winner is declared, then to wish that the results be overturned and another winner be declared, despite this being against the accepted process, then you simply do not respect the results or the accepted process behind deciding who won. It's not being a good sportsman. I'm saying that if you're going to participate, you ought to be a good sportsman.

I hope this makes it clear to you: If I voted to leave but the country voted to remain, I would want the government to follow through with the peoples wishes and remain, even though it is not what I voted for. Because that is respect for the democratic process. I would want the country to leave, but not at the expense of our democracy.

If you say you don't understand something as simple as this, I don't think philosophy is the subject for you. Or maybe you need it all the more.

If by "respect" you mean "admire", then no, I wouldn't admire the popular decision simply because it's the popular decision, and neither ought I.

If by "respect" you mean "take into consideration", then yes, I would take into consideration the popular decision. But taking into consideration the popular decision does not require that I agree with it – and nor does it require that I want it to be implemented. — Michael

Of course I don't mean "admire". Nor do I mean "take into consideration". More like "accept as valid". You ought to accept the result as valid, as that is what both the government and the population intend it to be. But more than that, you ought not wish that it be undermined or overturned. That would not be to respect the process. It's not about some legal small print, it's about what both the government is committed to and what the people expect, and that is that the results of the referendum will determine whether we stay or leave the EU.

You ought to accept the result as valid, as that is what both the government and the population intend it to be. But more than that, you ought not wish that it be undermined or overturned. — Sapientia

And to accept as valid is to accept as legally binding? As I've already said, this isn't true.

Or is to accept as valid to accept that the government will honour it? I'm sure they will. I haven't said anything to contradict this.

But more than that, you ought not wish that it be undermined or overturned.

Why? If I think that the democratic decision is wrong then I'm going to want it undermined. If we voted for slavery then I'm going to want it undermined. If we voted for a decision that would lead to a recession then I'm going to want it undermined.

I'm sure you'd accept at least the first of these. Therefore you accept that one ought not accept a democratic decision simply because it's a democratic decision. Sometimes there are good reasons to want a democratic decision ignored.

So as I've said, you don't actually have a problem with wanting to ignore a democratic decision. You just don't think that I'm justified in wanting this democratic decision ignored.

But again, I question the claim that wants need to be justified. You just keep asserting that I ought want this or that without ever supporting such a claim.

I would want the country to leave, but not at the expense of our democracy. — WhiskeyWhiskers

So you have an idealistic commitment to the principles of democracy. As I've already said, I don't. I wouldn't favour democracy at the expense of what's actually best for the country and its people.

Do you not see the hypocrisy, or logical inconsistency to be more polite, of favouring democracy when it works for you, but disregarding it when it doesn't? Or is basic logic too idealistic for your 'pragmatism'?

There's nothing illogical or hypocritical in accepting that a thing is a useful but imperfect system and that sometimes it's better to use something else.

The "all or nothing" approach is a false dichotomy. Would you really be OK with a democratic decision that favoured slavery?

It is hypocritical if you have decided that democracy is at least sufficient to even bother using in the first place. What you really mean by it being imperfect is that it doesn't agree with what you think should be done. Admit that much at least. What is clear in this referendum is that no one on either side knows the answer with enough certainty to justify your benevolent dictatorship. But democracy is the least worst way of deciding. You don't know any more than I do what the "right" decision is, but we make the best decision with the information we currently have that seems most credible to our own reasoning. And we let the majority decide.

I would not be ok with a democratic decision that favoured slavery. Slavery is obviously a irredeemably immoral institution. The decision to leave or stay in the EU is not that clear either way. So the two are not even remotely equivalent, and you cannot argue they are.

Last post tonight. Phones going to die soon.

Would you really be OK with a democratic decision that favoured slavery? — Michael

I guess this is the argument for a written constitution--putting human rights beyond debate and alteration--that can't be democratically over-ruled, i.e., over-ruled by Parliament. But anything consistent with such a constitution would be ultimately decided democratically.

What you really mean by it being imperfect is that it doesn't agree with what you think should be done. Admit that much at least — WhiskeyWhiskers

What do you think I've been doing?

You don't know any more than I do what the "right" decision is, but we make the best decision with the information we currently have that seems most credible to our own reasoning.

I know. But you haven't (primarily) taken issue with my claim that it's better to stay than to leave. You've taken issue with my claim that I'd want the government to ignore a vote to leave.

And we let the majority decide.

The right decision isn't determined by popular opinion. People can be wrong. Or people could be motivated by something other than what's best.

I would not be ok with a democratic decision that favoured slavery. Slavery is obviously a irredeemably immoral institution. The decision to leave or stay in the EU is not that clear either way. So the two are not even remotely equivalent, and you cannot argue they are.

Then you accept that democratic decisions shouldn't get carte blanche. Therefore you cannot claim that I ought respect a democratic decision simply because it's a democratic decision. You can only argue that I ought respect this democratic decision. So justify your assertion.

What about an advisory referendum on whether the UK should leave or remain in the EU makes it wrong for me to want the government to ignore a vote to leave?

I don't like referendums, and i don't respect them or regard them as democratic.

Typically , a referendum is constructed for political purposes and some questions are asked and not others. Take the devolution of Wales for example. The first time round the answer was no to devolution, so there was a second referendum. This time it was a marginal yes, and there will be no third.

One could have a 'true' democratic government by subjecting every decision to an online referendum; it would be a disaster, because what folks want is contradictory - low taxes and high government spending, for example.

In the case of the EU, it is assumed that Britain has the absolute right to decide to leave, presumably forever at any time. But Scotland does not, let alone Yorkshire, or the unenlightened household.

Democracy is a buzz-word, and and only starts to have real application when the constituency is already established. We decide, only when it is already decided who 'we' are. This makes a referendum on who 'we' shall be pretty much of a sham.

Why? If I think that the democratic decision is wrong then I'm going to want it undermined. If we voted for slavery then I'm going to want it undermined. If we voted for a decision that would lead to a recession then I'm going to want it undermined. — Michael

I agree with you.

The democratic process is open-ended, after all. "The People" never speak once and for all time. Take prohibition in the United States. Prohibition was passed with the support of a particular demographic -- rural, native, midwestern, anti-alcohol voters. The anti-prohibition demographic (rural, Northeastern, immigrant, and pro-alcohol) was not sufficiently mobilized. 13 years later, the ill effects of prohibition, and the dissatisfactions of the pro-alcohol demographic, were sufficient to result in overturning an earlier popular decision.

Were drinkers wrong in persisting in their use of alcohol during prohibition? Legally, yes. The People had spoken; prohibition was the law of the land.

The problem with prohibition is that the will of only one (minority) set of voters was adequately expressed. For many native-born Americans and immigrant communities alcohol was an important component of conviviality and socializing. Catholics and Lutherans both used wine in worship, for instance. Most Protestants didn't (and still don't).

The decision on EU participation is likely to be determined by which demographic gets to the polls. If a larger portion of older voters opts for Brexit, and the usual lesser number of younger voters is not at the polls to pass Stay, then you'll be out. Is that fair? Technically, yes: Majority rule. On the other hand, it isn't fair for older people (for whatever reason) to cut off what the younger generation sees as a necessary component of their future.

So yes: legislative decisions and popular referenda are open to challenge. Only if the new law is clearly immoral (like extending slavery to new territories, or requiring people in free states to facilitate slave recapture) is open defiance acceptable. Many people considered prohibition an intolerable imposition and disobeyed it. At various times and in various places, immoral laws have been openly flouted while efforts were made to change the law.

When should one accept law one doesn't like? When it isn't clearly immoral, or illegal. When it is passed with a large enough majority to be incapable of overturning. The courts decided that referenda results and laws passed denying gay people marriage were illegal, even if they were passed by huge majorities. So, over many an unwilling voter, gay marriage is now law, like it or not. Is this now carved in stone? Well, probably not. A different court and differently worded law could change things. Before 1973, abortion was a settled -- and usually illegal -- question. After Roe Vs. Wade ('73), abortion was resettled on the side of being legal everywhere, like it or not. 40 odd years later, the issue is becoming unsettled -- with moves toward illegality, again, like it or not.

I don't like referendums, and i don't respect them or regard them as democratic.

What would be a good alternative?

looks like the leaves have it, you guys

at 11:45 p.m., local time, 5:45 a.m. in London, it's 52% to 48%, in favor of leaving. There's a 1,121,000 majority, with 19 voting jurisdictions yet to report.

Well... we'll see what happens next, and next, and next. Best of luck to you all.

Goodbye and good luck.

Congrats, Britain. Here's to further countries having the courage to follow in your footsteps.