Remember my criteria @S?:

...here's the combination of circumstances under which I think this referendum (or any other) may justifiably be rerun.

1) One side breaks election law i.e. cheats (not merely lies).
2) The result is close enough so that the cheating may have decisively swayed the result.
3) The unforseen negative implications of the result are very serious.
4) Polls show a significant number of voters feel misled and / or have changed their mind on the basis of new information.

All these are in place in this particular referendum, but most likely apply to very few referenda. — Baden

The only difference in our positions now seems to be that you think number 3) alone is justification for rerunning the referendum (in the likely case of a no-deal threat) whereas I would require more than that. You could have said that earlier and saved us both a lot of typing

Btw @Hanover is going to be very disappointed at this Brexit betrayal. But, meh, who cares what he thinks. :up:

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. — Baden

Yes, and I am, but I'm not an absolutist, so there can be exceptions where I would sacrifice that principle and consider it the lesser of two evils.

(exactly what you now say you'll most likely support). — Baden

As a last resort! And only to avoid a no deal scenario. Can you show me where I've said that I would support a no deal scenario as the next best alternative to a deal? What other alternatives would there be if a deal isn't possible and no deal is a worst case scenario? You box me into a corner and then act like I'm a supporter of a second referendum, but that's quite misleading without qualification.

The only difference in our positions now seems to be that you think number 3) alone is justification for rerunning the referendum (in the likely case of a no-deal threat) whereas I would require more than that. You could have said that earlier and saved us both a lot of typing. — Baden

I have never agreed with the Tory sound bite that no deal is better than a bad deal. No deal would be the worst case scenario, so I would support any other option before it came to that, with my preference being for some kind of soft Brexit, as that would do the least harm economically besides remaining, which shouldn't be an option as a result of losing the referendum, except as a last resort.

Btw Hanover is going to be very disappointed at this Brexit betrayal. But, meh, who cares what he thinks. :up: — Baden

I too would be disappointed that it would force my hand, just as I was disappointed that Leave won, and just as I was disappointed that being principled meant giving my support to the winners. But leaving without a deal is a red line. And I don't believe that there would be enough support for that particular option. I think that it's even less popular than May's deal.

The upshot would be that Remain is the best option in a number of ways, like economically. And besides, Hanover wouldn't feel the brunt of leaving without a deal, unlike those of us who actually live here in the UK, so for someone like me, it's not just an academic matter, it would effect my actual life in a way that it wouldn't effect the lives of others.

Are you hung up on being consistent for consistency's sake here? You know what that Transcendentalist Ralph W. Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of the little mind." Now, you don't have a little mind, so this couldn't apply to you, but it is still possible to hang on to a comfortable consistency when letting go might make more sense.

I've never seen a nation so in fear of independence. I know the world's a great big scary place little birdie, but take a deep breath, jump off from up high, and flap those little wings. Everything's gonna be alright.

We know no such thing. — S

Sure. Deep down everyone is a murderer. :chin:

@S

In your own words, it's "unlikely if not impossible" your worst case scenario won't happen. So you most likely will support a referendum under the exact condition I highlighted, which you previously criticized, and in the time-frame you railed against as being anti-democratic and resulting in "democracy shooting itself in the foot". Those are plain facts and your verbal gymnastics to try to downplay them aren't going to convince anyone. You're most likely to support this referendum soon because it happens to suit your pragmatic considerations just like it suits my pragmatic considerations now, the only difference being you want to wait a short time, which by your own admission is probably not going to make any difference. You therefore haven't got a principled leg left to stand on in opposing rerunning this referendum or any other where similar negative consequences are threatened.

I've never seen a nation so in fear of independence. I know the world's a great big scary place little birdie, but take a deep breath, jump off from up high, and flap those little wings. Everything's gonna be alright. — Hanover

The EU is a club with mutual overall benefits not a foreign colonizer. Leaving it is dumb because you lose those benefits and gain very little in return, and in a no-deal scenario, it's not just dumb but very self-destructive. Little birdies without any wings shouldn't be pushed off cliffs and everything is not going to be alright.

(You may consider the fact that @S is willing to dump every principled argument he's made here in the probable face of no-deal threat as a mark of how not alright things could get.)

Well this is good timing as well. Article on the preferendum

I've never seen a nation so in fear of independence. I know the world's a great big scary place little birdie, but take a deep breath, jump off from up high, and flap those little wings. Everything's gonna be alright. — Hanover

Some Americans just don't understand what exports (or trade) mean to other countries. You just produce for yourselves and get the rest as imports from China. Don't have to care a damn about things like your main export partners as over 300 million of Americans is quite enough of a market.

Export ratio, meaning export of goods and services (% of GDP):
UK: 28,1%
USA: 12,6%
(Germany: 46%)

UK's exports (in £, 2015):
1. To the EU 133 bn
2. To the US 45 bn

(And of course that the EU is in reality more a confederacy made up of independent states, not a federation of non-independent subjected states.)

Are you hung up on being consistent for consistency's sake here? You know what that Transcendentalist Ralph W. Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of the little mind." Now, you don't have a little mind, so this couldn't apply to you, but it is still possible to hang on to a comfortable consistency when letting go might make more sense. — Bitter Crank

No, not consistency for consistency's sake, but I get what you're saying. It's a dilemma, at least for me - Michael doesn't seem as troubled - and one has to weigh up the options. I get the consequentialist argument for cancellation or a second referendum, but that would require making certain sacrifices which I'm not so willing to make and would rather avoid altogether or put off until there's no better option.

I've never seen a nation so in fear of independence. I know the world's a great big scary place little birdie, but take a deep breath, jump off from up high, and flap those little wings. Everything's gonna be alright. — Hanover

It's not fear, to a large extent it's that the economic forecasts are undesirable.

Sure. Deep down everyone is a murderer. :chin: — Benkei

Yes, that's exactly what I suggesting. Glad we got that cleared up. :up:

In your own words, it's "unlikely if not impossible" your worst case scenario won't happen. So you most likely will support a referendum under the exact condition I highlighted, which you previously criticized, and in the time-frame you railed against as being anti-democratic and resulting in "democracy shooting itself in the foot". Those are plain facts and your verbal gymnastics to try to downplay them aren't going to convince anyone. You're most likely to support this referendum soon because it happens to suit your pragmatic considerations just like it suits my pragmatic considerations now, the only difference being you want to wait a short time, which by your own admission is probably not going to make any difference. You therefore haven't got a principled leg left to stand on in opposing rerunning this referendum or any other where similar negative consequences are threatened. — Baden

This is going around in circles with you emphasising one aspect of my position and me emphasising the other, but we're both just describing my position.

But you're wrong that to say that I haven't got a principled leg left to stand on. One of those principles which remains in tact is that I have yet to resort to the defeatism of yourself and others, which you apparently consider a triviality. I'm not going to jump to any conclusions, I'm just thinking ahead.

It's not a foregone conclusion that we'll end up with no deal.

This is going around in circles... — S

Yes, it is. Let's leave it at that

(Germany: 46%) — ssu

This figure has gained some interest as of late, making some question who's really gaining an advantage from the centralized Euro. I realize that the UK isn't one suffering, but the German success is an interesting phenomenon.

Little birdies without any wings shouldn't be pushed off cliffs and everything is not going to be alright. — Baden

First of all, if the birdies have no wings, then they're going to be eaten by those who do. It's just a matter of time. Second, yes, everything is going to be alright, the song says so:

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. — Benkei

I see. I misunderstood your earlier post. What's the route to ignoring the last referendum (other than just having another one, and then possibly another?)

I'd argue to revoke the article 50 notice. Just don't have brexit. A referendum the sort that they would probably have to resort to on short notice is going to be plagued with the same problems and be marred by issue voting.

So Parliament would just claim veto power over referendums? Would that need to show up in the British Constitution? Or are there already rules for that?

being principled meant giving my support to the winners. — S

This is a very emotionally mature position.

The greater the number of recipients, the greater the duty of keeping the promise. The promise was made to the whole of the UK, which has a population of 66.57 million. There was a confirmed electorate of 46,500,001. And 33,568,184 ballot papers were included in the count. Which gives an exceptionally high turn out of 72.2%. — S

Sure, all else being equal, promising to more people adds weight to the promise. However, I was aware that the referendum involved a lot of people and I don't see how this changes any of the reasoning's for a second referendum I posit as defendable. Again maybe not "true" arguments, just of a sound and reasonable structure following likely agreeable ethical principles to most UK residents.

These examples aren't relevant, given that I'm not arguing that there are no circumstances in which a promise should be broken, only that the circumstances in the case of the referendum up to the present moment aren't enough of a basis to warrant breaking the promise that, to the extent that it's within their control, the results of the referendum would be treated as binding, and there wouldn't be another one, at least for a long time. — S

Ok, we are in agreement here, but (at least in the post I was responding to) your argument was it's simple ethics that promises should be kept; if you make a bold statement like this you should expect to be challenged.

The relevance of the circumstances I bring up is that parliament could make a reasonable defense of a second referendum along any of the lines I mention. My main point is there's no clear constitutional or political or ethical or "fairness" principle that somehow excludes a second referendum. If you agree that in principle a second referendum would be justifiable with "sufficient changes" or "sufficient evidence of campaign fraud" or "sufficient changes to the makeup of parliament that they need not feel bound by poor decisions of passed leadership", then we are in agreement in principle.

As for the "promise of binding", I do not feel this is a simple defense. For instance, what do we mean by "binding"? That article 50 would be triggered? Well, that's already done so "promise fulfilled", what do we do now that a deal is on the table: consult the people once again.

There isn't a concrete Brexit agreement to vote on. There will only be one when it actually comes down to the vote in parliament. — S

From what I understand the May-EU proposed agreement is the "final offer" as far as the EU is concerned, so it seems to be there's something to vote on.

But I'm against breaking the promise and rendering the results meaningless. I can't stand the consequence that it would've all been for nothing, that what was in fact my first ever vote in politics turned out to be meaningless and a waste of time. I don't want a second chance, I want the first chance to matter. — S

A second referendum would not render the first meaningless. In any complex planning process it's very normal critical things come up for votes several times; so it's fairly natural that there's a vote to start a process and then the same kind of vote at critical junctures in the process. For instance, if you instruct your lawyer to liquidate all your assets and throw the money out of a helicopter, it's likely they will come back at each critical step to know you still want to carry it through (though I don't mean this analogy as a alarmist parallel for Brexit, it's not like starting a disastrous war or something on that scale; for me the stakes are more geopolitical: I believe, despite the EU having man flaws, it is a much greater force for democracy and peace building than China or the US going forward; so UK staying in EU makes the EU stronger and in a better position to counter-balance China and US; and remember Trump maybe just the beginning of the current US foreign policy trajectory -- we should not assume that Trump is about to go nor that what will follow him will be magically better).

The consequences of the referendum have been triggering article 50, going all the way to 30 months before Brexit deal or no-deal. I believe in the context of the Brexit campaigns, the "binding promise" was more about the idea parliament would just ignore the vote and do nothing; in that scenario, yes I agree it would lower faith in the democratic process; however, the actions of parliament post-Brexit vote have definitely had consequence, and so given all those consequences and actions by the parliament it's quite natural to confirm things in a second vote.

Okay, maybe it's not simple ethics. Maybe that was a poor choice of terms. Although I think that you've taken my meaning way beyond what I intended. — S

"Promises should be kept" is a good slogan, but the problem with good slogans is that even knowing that the issue is more complicated, the feeling of "having a good slogan" quickly translates to a feeling of "the position is strong as it has such a good slogan that can make gains in twitter memes and sound bits allowed to air by the media". In other words, people can quickly become victims of their own propaganda, especially with a compliant media wanting to shelter people from any nuance (as that quickly creates space to criticize elites); though I'm not saying this is your case, it could be worth reflecting how "average George" can quickly believe good slogans means a good positions must exist that these slogans represent.

What you say about parliament is only hypothetical. As things stand, the reality is that there is to be no vote in parliament on a second referendum. There is only to be a meaningful vote on the final deal. And even if there were to be a vote in parliament on a second referendum, it would still need to get a majority in the house. Both major parties, officially, are against it. Would there be enough rebels? Doubtful. — S

Yes, my points are mainly on the theme that it's not anti-democratic for Parliament to call a second referendum. Given Parliament "represents the people" it isn't anti-democratic "in itself" for parliament to decide not to have a second referendum (any criticism of this is reducible to the whole Parliamentary scheme, not inconsistency in the system as it is; i.e. no second referendum would be consistent but within a low-efficiency-democratic system as a whole; in other words the same elites-representating vs as-direct-as-practical democratic, such as the Swiss system, debate as existed before Brexit or second-Brexit).

Now, if I was an MP I would vote for a second referendum. The main argument I would use is that if I struck a preliminary agreement with another business and then the lawyers drafted the final version of the agreement, I of course have the right to backout and even if the lawyers (i.e. my representatives) had power of attorney to sign on my behalf -- and even if their understanding of my instructions left room for interpreting that maybe I don't want to review the final draft -- I would definitely want to review the final draft as well as consult me again at critical points. No competent representative in the business world would act otherwise without either incredibly clear instructions to not-re-consult or then some sort of bizarre situation where confirmation is impossible and so they did their best; in the case of Brexit, re-confirmation is not impossible, and any lawyer would, given a similar situation in business or with individuals, that obviously confirming at each step is the best way to know one is faithfully representing their clients; I don't see why political representatives should have lower standards (which is logic that leads directly to the Swiss system, which I am a big fan of). So yes, I'd expect my representatives to respect my preliminary indication of what to do, but I'd also expect them to come back once they have a clear idea of the agreement or execution plan so that I could give a final decision (preliminary agreements are not binding as that makes negotiations basically impossible, it's binding after the signature and parties can walk away before that; in the case of Brexit it's a highly suspect line of reasoning that "the results of the referendum being biding" continues to make every further step towards Brexit also binding, it's entirely consistent that the results are binding to start implementing the objective and further consultation is reasonable to make subsequent critical steps also binding).

The UK has no Constitution except for the Magna Carta, which isn't what we normally understand as being a Constitution. Referenda do not have a regulated place in the UK, so it's really a political decision what to do with the result.

Wow. They're totally wide open government-wise. No constitution, no elder statesmen, they can just make it up as they go.

I read that in the case of no-deal, they'll switch to WTO rules. I think they would actually be fine doing that except for the bumpy transition.

I'd argue to revoke the article 50 notice. Just don't have brexit. A referendum the sort that they would probably have to resort to on short notice is going to be plagued with the same problems and be marred by issue voting. — Benkei

Why would a second referendum be plagued by the same issues? From what I understand the main problem with the first Brexit vote is that the option to leave had no clear interpretation; no reasonable person would argue that 51% of people voted for a no-deal Brexit for instance, and without that interpretation it's unclear what the mandate is exactly.

However, a second referendum can be between three clear options: EU's offer, no-deal, or remain.

Parliament simply revoking article 50 seems to me, pretty clearly, would be plagued by far more issues; and is exactly what the Brexiters were crying wolf about (that parliament would one way or another ignore the referendum results).

Edit: Also, in terms of time, the EU would certainly grant an extension so a proper referendum can be made if needed; in terms of money the cost of a referendum is far outweighed by the economic implications; and in terms of democracy it's the most valid democratic process on critical issues (why a referendum was called to join the EU in the first place, so completely consistent that a referendum would be called to validate a new relationship with the EU).

Well, they do take their precedents and tradition seriously so making it up as they go isn't quite how it works. :wink:

The problem for the UK is the loss of direct access to the EU market for goods, services and capital. That will lead to an immediate and permanent reduction in GDP.

The problem for the UK is the loss of direct access to the EU market for goods, services and capital. That will lead to an immediate and permanent reduction in GDP. — Benkei

This makes a number of assumptions: that the UK's free agent status won't allow them to negotiate better deals with other trading partners (like the US, Korea, or wherever), that the free trade within the EU was the most beneficial arrangement for the UK, and that the UK can't negotiate a better arrangement with the EU once they leave.

Britain going at it alone poses all sorts of risks, but if their expertise is superior, then they could be successful here. Judging from the muted enthusiasm over the whole enterprise, I'm beginning to lose confidence in them. Maybe they can hire some Americans to figure it out for them. If nothing else, they'll at least bring some optimism.

The problem for the UK is the loss of direct access to the EU market for goods, services and capital. That will lead to an immediate and permanent reduction in GDP. — Benkei

How do you know it would be permanent? The UK imports a hefty load from the EU, so it's not like they have no power to negotiate a nice deal. And there are other markets.

Economic crystal balls are frequently wrong.

Well, they do take their precedents and tradition seriously so making it up as they go isn't quite how it works. :wink: — Benkei

Then you've suggested that they could take their customs less seriously without any breakdown in rule of law.

Honestly I don't know what to make of the UK government. I'm not sure how it has managed to function this long.

Jinx

Honestly I don't know what to make of the UK government. I'm not sure how it has managed to function this long. — frank

The UK is steeped in tradition. It's not like they radically swing from one direction to the next. They have a monarchy for God sake. And it's not like the US Constitution has been used to maintain tradition and stability in the US. It's actually been used as a force for great change.

As Benkei also alluded to, Britain is a common law country, meaning its courts adhere very closely to precedent. I'd also point out that even in those countries with constitutions, many don't have constitutional courts vested with the power of striking down legislation. The point being, the US's method is just one of many.