So you're telling me that the amorphous sense of 'winning' an individual might have as a result of his or her opinion being confirmed by a slight majority of others who cared to express an opinion two years ago, is more important than the actual consequences of the policy now we know what it is? — karl stone

No, I'm talking about the fact that they won, not an "amorphous sense". But with that correction, yes, it's more important to honour the result, with the only possible exception being to prevent a no deal scenario.

And you didn't answer my question.

Parliament votes to have one. Or it votes to just revoke Article 50 without a referendum. — Michael

But is there a majority of MPs for either of those options? I don't reckon so at the moment. The official line of both main parties is against either option. If I'm right, then something would have to change, which it might do.

I think a majority oppose the Withdrawal Agreement but also a majority oppose No Deal (although not the same majority, of course).

If the Withdrawal Agreement is voted down then what will the majority who oppose No Deal do? I doubt they will just let it happen. They'll vote for a second referendum as a last ditch attempt to avoid a hard Brexit.

Your response is nonsense really, with this global attack against the "science" of referenda, arguing they are meaningless exercises. You ignore the fact that they are given meaning by the decree of law, which means they matter even if you think they shouldn't. If we decide to choose our representatives by the roll of the die, then that's how we do it, despite the science that shows dice aren't smart enough to choose our representatives.

I think a majority oppose the Withdrawal Agreement but also a majority oppose No Deal (although not the same majority, of course).

If the Withdrawal Agreement is voted down then what will the majority who oppose No Deal do? I doubt they will just let it happen. They'll vote for a second referendum as a last ditch attempt to avoid a hard Brexit. — Michael

A majority oppose the withdrawal agreement as it was to be presented before the delay. Yet, for example, in today's news, it has been reported that the Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has said that it would be possible to get "a version" of the prime minister's Brexit deal approved by MPs.

It will depend on what May brings back. Although I'm hardly optimistic about her chances, it's too soon to write it off.

But yeah, if it gets voted down, I agree that a second referendum or a cancellation would be much more likely.

Frankly, his last few responses have been lazy, patronising drivel devoid of substance.

Yet, for example, in today's news, it has been reported that the Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has said that it would be possible to get "a version" of the prime minister's Brexit deal approved by MPs.

It will depend on what May brings back. Although I'm hardly optimistic about her chances, it's too soon to write it off. — S

The EU have rejected a renegotiation of the current deal.

The EU have rejected a renegotiation of the current deal. — Michael

Once again, I'm aware of what they have said. You don't need to point that out to me. We'll just have to wait and see whether that bears true.

Besides, that same article that you linked to says that, on Thursday evening, Mr Juncker urged the UK to set out more clearly what it wants, which seems to suggest that he is open to considering variations to the draft withdrawal agreement. Mixed messages?

Why couldn't the UK have worked from within the EU to make the changes it wanted?

Why couldn't the UK have worked from within the EU to make the changes it wanted? — frank

David Cameron tried and failed to do just that. He negotiated some reforms from the EU, although he didn't get everything that he wanted. And then a majority of those who voted in the referendum indicated that they thought that his reforms didn't go far enough, since they voted to leave.

But the people who voted to remain are ok with that lack of self determination? Or are they unhappy about it, but leaving is just worse?

But the people who voted to remain are ok with that lack of self determination? Or are they unhappy about it, but leaving is just worse? — frank

I think that it's more the latter. I think that many people who voted remain, myself included, were critical of certain aspects of how things were under our membership of the EU, and would've preferred to remain with reforms than to remain in an unreformed EU or to leave. This view was also reflected in the views of a majority of MPs.

But it's complicated regarding self-determination. There are things that I would trust more in the hands of the EU than a Tory government. I trust Labour to protect or improve upon the things I care about more, but they're currently in opposition.

4 options: May's deal, no deal, another referendum, or revoke Article 50. — Michael

There's potentially another option. A no-confidence vote in the House of Commons could change things. Then it might not be May's deal, but someone else's.

I don't quite understand. Is it that the EU needs a culture change to keep its members? Do the member states not trust one another? Would greater centralization of authority help or hurt?

If the UK had another referendum and voted to stay, is there an underlying problem that will just pop up again down the line?

I don't quite understand. Is it that the EU needs a culture change to keep its members? Do the member states not trust one another? Would greater centralization of authority help or hurt? — frank

I would suggest looking up leftwing arguments against the European Union. There are two camps who agree on many of the points, but differ in their conclusions, with one camp favouring leave and the other favouring attempts to reform from within.

But to give you some idea:

Some never bought the idea that being a progressive meant being positive about Europe. They saw nothing especially progressive about mass unemployment, the impact of the common agricultural policy on the developing world, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or the bias towards austerity ingrained in the stability and growth pact. Rather, they saw neoliberalism being hardwired into the European project. As indeed it was. — Larry Elliott, The Guardian

If the UK had another referendum and voted to stay, is there an underlying problem that will just pop up again down the line? — frank

The problems wouldn't just disappear. We'd still need to work towards a resolution, towards reform. That way we'd still retain the benefits. But leaving would be like trying to solve a problem by creating an even bigger problem.

what's nonsense is starting about legality for the first time while we were debating the ethics of it. The UK doesn't have a law requiring the government to adhere to the outcome so your comment is irrelevant and revealing of your ignorance in this particular case.

It was S that had some inane comments on "the will of the people" which is misplaced considering what we know about how referenda work. And my comments are patronising because I already indicated it is established fact (yes, you can look it up!), provided an alternative recent example and invite you to do some research yourselves. This isn't kindergarten where I have to spell everything out for you.

It's not misplaced or inane to bring up the will of the people, it's of great importance, considering we're a democracy. And your comments about how you think the ballot would've been better formulated are too little, too late. The right time for that consideration was before the referendum.

Other than informing me of your hostility, little else is communicated in your post. It's fairly obvious that the purpose of the referendum was to determine whether the UK would stay or leave. To hold the referendum for that express purpose and then to argue that referenda aren't a valid means for the purpose expressed once a result is reached, would result in zero respect for the government, which would be even further eroded if the government assumed your arrogance and references to what science decreed.

This isn't kindergarten where I have to spell everything out for you. — Benkei

If it's not kindergarten, why the temper tantrum?

What was misplaced is thinking a will of the people can be distilled from the leave result, which you used as an argument to respect the vote. It's inane because if you'd actually be interested in the subject you'd know referenda are terrible instruments for it as they are currently used, which is an established fact in political sciences. That was what my comment pertained to. Your latest post misses the mark yet again.

So your argument is that they shouldn't have used a referendum to determine whether to stay or leave. That's critically different than the argument that they should ignore the result of the mechanism they chose to arrive at their decision.

What I said was that neither the lies (and as a consequence the failure of the opposition to being out the truth) nor "the will of the people", since that cannot be discerned, are grounds to uphold the result.

You've now moved on to the next argument which is trust in the government. Those people that voted remain and those that changed their minds in the meantime will consider it grounds for more trust. There are plenty of Brits who won't feel betrayed which is exactly why it's still being argued about. So that too isn't conclusive.

For me it's quite simple, if doing the right thing for the most people (UK citizens) means ignoring the vote then so be it. All other considerations be dammed.

That goes without saying. Mostly it was an argument for anyone thinking the referendum was informative in the first place and use it to "uphold the will of the people" to argue against a 2nd referendum, which hasn't become clearer through the vote. You can be against a 2nd referendum but not on the grounds that you're implementing the will of the people by doing so.

For me it's quite simple, if doing the right thing for the most people (UK citizens) means ignoring the vote then so be it. All other considerations be dammed. — Benkei

So you favor totalitarianism? (Sorry about the kids. Hope they get well soon.)

What was misplaced is thinking a will of the people can be distilled from the leave result, which you used as an argument to respect the vote. — Benkei

But it can be, in accordance with my use of the phrase, logic, and established facts. The will of the people is expressed by the majority of voters, and the majority of voters voted to leave, so the will of the people at that time was to leave.

Your reasoning seems to be that just because there were various motives for voting to leave, like wanting to reduce immigration, then that somehow renders the result unreflective of the will of the people at the time. But that reasoning is invalid. As the slogan goes, leave means leave. The motive doesn't change that. You talk of established facts, but it's an established fact that the majority of voters voted to leave, and that's all that's needed.

It's inane because if you'd actually be interested in the subject you'd know referenda are terrible instruments for it as they are currently used, which is an established fact in political sciences. That was what my comment pertained to. Your latest post misses the mark yet again. — Benkei

I'm not missing anything. I'm not in disagreement with your point about how a simplified ballot won't reflect the will of the people in greater detail. But it doesn't follow from that that the will of the people hasn't been represented. The ballot did what it was designed to do. If the government had wanted it any other way, then they would've done it differently. But they didn't, they went with a simple in-out format. And again, I'm pretty sure that they made that clear in their manifesto before they were elected, so there was a democratic mandate, once elected, to honour that pledge.

So you favor totalitarianism? — frank

Excuse me for quoting myself from page2.

Another folly of a referendum is that it asks an isolated question, when policies are interdependent. If you have a separate vote on, say...

1. lower taxes - yes/ no.
2. better services yes/no
3. economic stability yes/no

...You are very likely going to get three yeses. But they constitute a trilemma of which only two can be had. — unenlightened

So an excellent reason for not running the country by referenda, but by representation is that one needs to avoid contradiction. It does not require even that anyone is themselves voting for a contradiction: if one third votes for 1 & 2, one third for 2 & 3 and one third for 1 & 3, one has a two thirds majority for all three.

Now in this case, we have a single referendum, but with people voting for incompatible reasons, and voting without having considered the ramifications of the decision.

By and large, people did not vote to end the Good Friday agreement, or for the independence of Scotland, but did not either seriously consider that these might be consequences.

There is much emphasis laid on sovereignty, but little consideration of the sovereignty that will be given up in making trade deals elsewhere - the court which would administer disputes in a trade deal with the US, for example, or the regulations on food standards that would have to be aligned.

Much emphasis too on control of immigration, but very little on the loss of control of emigration.

And these two are certainly things that folks in economically depressed areas voted for, as if the transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels has been the reason for their neglect. But if you actually make the comparison, Brussels is the more benign power in terms of developing such regions.

Indeed, in my view, the loss of sovereignty itself is more seriously to the multinational companies than to multinational governance. So the direction in which totalitarianism lies is quite other than in not accepting an advisory vote.

So this question should have been left to a body of elder statesmen. What is that in the UK?

Now in this case, we have a single referendum, but with people voting for incompatible reasons, and voting without having considered the ramifications of the decision. — unenlightened

The problem is, that same criticism can be levelled against our representatives in parliament. Boris Johnson, speaking as Foreign Secretary, said that his policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it, and David Davis, speaking as Brexit secretary, said that we could strike a deal whereby we enjoy the exact same benefits that we currently do.

But it can be, in accordance with my use of the phrase, logic, and established facts. The will of the people is expressed by the majority of voters, and the majority of voters voted to leave, so the will of the people at that time was to leave. — S

I went over that. You can either accept the fact that it isn't the case that those who voted to leave in fact wanted to leave or not. It's not about "a greater detail" of the will of the people it's that in fact we can be certain no majority ever was in favour of leave. We only know that for disparate reasons leave reflected an aspect of people's will that they thought remain didn't provide but without knowing who voted leave for what reason it's up in the air what policies really should be implemented.

Don't be ridiculous. We're still talking about the UK. Context matters.

The problem is, that same criticism can be levelled against our representatives in parliament. Boris Johnson, speaking as Foreign Secretary, said that his policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it, and David Davis, speaking as Brexit secretary, said that we could strike a deal whereby we enjoy the exact same benefits that we currently do. — S

We can't protect ourselves from idiots once elected (it's expected the same voices win or in parliament in the end) . We can protect ourselves from badly crafted referenda though, which is why it's so important to realise the stupidity of the type of referenda the leave vote was an example of.

What's ironic, one of the most brilliant examples of a participative democracy in modern times was the process of the UK pension system review.