(There's also a non-orthogonal option of hold a second referendum to let voters decide which option to do, the results of this are likely to depend heavily on what options are actually on the ballot.)
It's not at all clear that a better deal is forthcoming, given more time. Indeed, the current deal on offer is already kicking most of the hard contentious decisions down the road. So the general preference for what should be done amounts to, in decreasing order of desirability, 3, 1, 4, 2 or 1, 3, 4, 2, depending on how people view the EU. But that preference isn't the same preference that's going on for the vocal Brexiteer politician population.
For those people, the EU has been an ideological punching bag for quite some time, which means that admitting that leaving now is not the appropriate action amounts to discrediting their views. So to them, option 3 is the absolute worst option. Similarly, the current deal on offer commits the UK to maintaining a lot of the EU's provisions without a strong say on them, which is still pretty anathema to those who want nothing less than a hard Brexit, making option 1 nearly as bad. This means that the remaining option are to walk away from the current deal and hope that brinkmanship causes the EU to sweeten the deal, or to believe that the worst effects of a no-deal Brexit simply won't happen. So for these politicians, their order of preference is basically the reverse of what it is for everybody.
Essentially, that is the issue. Brexit was sold on a pack of fantasy and lies, and the people in power have the choice of committing to their fantasies are admitting that they've lied. It's rare to find the politician who would admit that the worldview they've committed to for decades is a lie, and you shouldn't be surprised that the Brexiteers are the same way.
In the UK parliament voting system, you vote for the individual, not the party list. Thus MPs won't do anything that makes them lose votes. Voting for a bad deal (even though it's the best deal you'll get) will make you lose votes in the next election, even more so if the deal is actually approved. It's very easy to criticize from the fences when that gets you more votes.
That's basically the reason why Boris Johnson didn't "run" for Prime Minister on the election after the referendum. And he was the main representative of the Brexit campaign that had just won. He knew whoever was going to be PM would only be able to get a bad deal and would be fiercely criticized.
I think that’s why Nigel Farage quit politics immediately. No way that /edit/ guy /end edit/ is going to risk taking any responsibility for the consequences.
The sad take away from this, for me, is that even though politicians may seem stupid, they are mostly acting stupid because that's what gets you elected. They are not stupid, just ruthless.
That's certainly the perjorative view. On the other hand extreme pressure and death threats might cause one to wonder if the game is worth continuing. How many of us would enjoy that? Given that the whole point of UKIP (as far as I can see) was to ignite the Brexit debate leading to the referendum, the job was done and UKIP had zero chance of doing anything else. Farage failed to win a parliamentary seat so why would be subject himself to further non-profitable activities? He was a successful trader prior to his entry into politics.
> So, why do it? Should a razor thin majority in a public vote 2 years ago decide the UK's policy forever?
Why do it? That question ceased being relevant a long time ago, when the process was irreversibly started. The linked article is suggesting a least-bad path forward. People may or may not agree with their assessment.
The real problem is not majoritarianism, or democracy. The problem is that the referendum should have been framed as "Start exit negotiations."
If it's not framed that way, it amounts to buying the outcome of a risky multi-year process with a lot of downside risk and tens of billions in costs sight unseen.
It is not antidemocratic to have a referendum on "Were the negotiations a success?"
Nor does it make sense that if the UK parliament rejects the exit deal that "no deal Brexit" is the only outcome. The UK can withdraw the notification they will exit and remain and continue to negotiate. It adds some lead-time to an eventual exit if that ever makes sense and can be negotiated before the earliest date the UK can leave. But, in no way is it antidemocratic.
>>The problem is that the referendum should have been framed as "Start exit negotiations."
Very true.
Many people thought voting for `leave` meant making the immigrants leave. They were interviewing people on BBC and people on the streets were approaching non-white people and saying `We voted leave, so you guys leave now.`
The vote should have been framed as `UK should remain in the EU`, `UK should exit the EU`.
That would have probably worked better than framing it as `Should the immigrants remain`, `Should the immigrant leave`.
That was my reaction from the get go... none of it was legally binding, why make more if it than it was? The reply I usually got was that politicians would have to do it to not "lose credibility" (the one they don't have in the first place), or to "get re-elected" (which is not actually anything they technically have to do).
To me it seemed like people hypnotizing themselves to sleepwalk into (IMO) pointless, useless harm, and that also came from people who said they were against Brexit. "This really sucks, but there's no going back now". Most of the (online) discussion (I saw) was about whether a Brexit would be good or bad, but that it would happen seemed a foregone conclusion.
How else do you want democracy to work? The people agreed on a system of rules order to decide between two directions and a decision was made. If the government can just decide to not carry out the will of the people (however thin the margins are) then why have a vote at all?
Perhaps more than a simple majority? Perhaps a majority of the eligible voting population? What is called a "razor-thin majority" is actually a plurality. And I don't think democratic decisions should be made by plurality.
I want parliament to do its job we elected them to do. I want it not to use referendums to make major far-reaching decisions on simple majorities. We elect representatives to govern on our behalf not ask us what to do with a referendum at every turn.
I wonder if for things like joining our leaving the EU we should make them get at least 60ish percent of the vote. Simple majorities have a tendency to ping-pong back and forth so it doesn't seem optional for huge systemic changes.
I'm not suggesting moving the goalposts now. I'm just saying the whole thing was misconceived in the first place.
Cameron, when he called the referendum, never beleived it would go Leave. All the polls at that time said Remain would win easily. He believed it would be a clear Remain and we would all move on.
There should never have been a referendum, without a party in power having a policy to leave.
The big problem we have is that Brexit was not the policy of any political party, so who is responsible for implementing it? May is our legal, rightful Prime Minister selected by due process, but she was a remainer.
The only right way to do this would be for the people to elect a party with implementing brexit as policy, and have a referendum to ratify the decision. That’s how we got in and that’s how we should have left. What we got instead was a muddled tangle of lack of responsibility, recrimination and disagreement of what brexit even is.
To this day nobody on the brexit side has ever put forward a clear, comprehensive plan for how to implement brexit. All we get is platitudes about a European Singapore, vague half-ideas like magical goods tracking systems that don’t exist, and red lines of what they won’t accept. No real credible plan of how to actually do it, because it’s never actually been anybody’s policy. May’s is the only plan on the table. Everybody else won’t shut up, but won’t put up either.
Let's agree that if everybody wanted Brexit, we should have Brexit. And if everybody wanted to remain, we should have remain. Then, start with everyone wanting Brexit, and flip opinions towards remain, one by one. At some point the group decision flips. Political decisions are just like that. Majority rule is not to blame.
That's not what my post said. The argument would be the same for any way of making decisions, no matter how complex, so long as individual preferences are the input.
1. Take the deal on offer.
2. Stall for more time to get a better deal.
3. Cancel the whole thing.
4. Bail out with no-deal.
(There's also a non-orthogonal option of hold a second referendum to let voters decide which option to do, the results of this are likely to depend heavily on what options are actually on the ballot.)
It's not at all clear that a better deal is forthcoming, given more time. Indeed, the current deal on offer is already kicking most of the hard contentious decisions down the road. So the general preference for what should be done amounts to, in decreasing order of desirability, 3, 1, 4, 2 or 1, 3, 4, 2, depending on how people view the EU. But that preference isn't the same preference that's going on for the vocal Brexiteer politician population.
For those people, the EU has been an ideological punching bag for quite some time, which means that admitting that leaving now is not the appropriate action amounts to discrediting their views. So to them, option 3 is the absolute worst option. Similarly, the current deal on offer commits the UK to maintaining a lot of the EU's provisions without a strong say on them, which is still pretty anathema to those who want nothing less than a hard Brexit, making option 1 nearly as bad. This means that the remaining option are to walk away from the current deal and hope that brinkmanship causes the EU to sweeten the deal, or to believe that the worst effects of a no-deal Brexit simply won't happen. So for these politicians, their order of preference is basically the reverse of what it is for everybody.
Essentially, that is the issue. Brexit was sold on a pack of fantasy and lies, and the people in power have the choice of committing to their fantasies are admitting that they've lied. It's rare to find the politician who would admit that the worldview they've committed to for decades is a lie, and you shouldn't be surprised that the Brexiteers are the same way.