What's the difference between repeating elections every few years and repeating a referendum after a few years?What is a “confirmatory” referendum in the context of Brexit?Why was the Brexit referendum conducted as a simple majority vote?Why didn't Labour's 2017 manifesto contain a commitment to abolish the House of Lords?What's the point in holding a second Brexit referendum?What are the reasons for not having a voter turnout threshold for a nation-wide referendum?Why doesn't the UK hold a second Brexit referendum to clarify what the public wants from Brexit?Is a second EU Referendum undemocratic?Why would a British citizen define themselves as English, not British?Would it be plausible to solve the Irish Border issue by unifying Ireland?Why is participating in the European Parliamentary elections used as a threat?What is a “confirmatory” referendum in the context of Brexit?
Information to fellow intern about hiring?
What does 'script /dev/null' do?
How to deal with fear of taking dependencies
Does a dangling wire really electrocute me if I'm standing in water?
How is it possible for user's password to be changed after storage was encrypted? (on OS X, Android)
Could Giant Ground Sloths have been a Good Pack Animal for the Ancient Mayans
Where to refill my bottle in India?
How to manage monthly salary
Latin words with no plurals in English
Why airport relocation isn't done gradually?
Why do UK politicians seemingly ignore opinion polls on Brexit?
What is the command to reset a PC without deleting any files
Unbreakable Formation vs. Cry of the Carnarium
Email Account under attack (really) - anything I can do?
Are cabin dividers used to "hide" the flex of the airplane?
What happens when a metallic dragon and a chromatic dragon mate?
Re-submission of rejected manuscript without informing co-authors
What to wear for invited talk in Canada
OA final episode explanation
Can produce flame be used to grapple, or as an unarmed strike, in the right circumstances?
Why is my log file so massive? 22gb. I am running log backups
Is it legal to have the "// (c) 2019 John Smith" header in all files when there are hundreds of contributors?
Deciding between multiple birth names and dates?
Are white and non-white police officers equally likely to kill black suspects?
What's the difference between repeating elections every few years and repeating a referendum after a few years?
What is a “confirmatory” referendum in the context of Brexit?Why was the Brexit referendum conducted as a simple majority vote?Why didn't Labour's 2017 manifesto contain a commitment to abolish the House of Lords?What's the point in holding a second Brexit referendum?What are the reasons for not having a voter turnout threshold for a nation-wide referendum?Why doesn't the UK hold a second Brexit referendum to clarify what the public wants from Brexit?Is a second EU Referendum undemocratic?Why would a British citizen define themselves as English, not British?Would it be plausible to solve the Irish Border issue by unifying Ireland?Why is participating in the European Parliamentary elections used as a threat?What is a “confirmatory” referendum in the context of Brexit?
There's a lot of talk in the UK these days about how holding a second referendum on Brexit would be "undemocratic" and "go against the spirit of referendums". However repeating a vote doesn't seem all that strange in a democracy. The UK itself holds parliamentary elections every 5 years or even less frequently if the government dissolves parliament. Other countries routinely hold elections every 4 years or even 2 years in the case of US Congress.
So what's the big deal about holding a second Brexit vote? Wouldn't it be akin to choosing a new government after a few years? Why can voters change their mind about who runs the country but cannot change their mind about the outcome of a referendum?
united-kingdom brexit referendum
add a comment |
There's a lot of talk in the UK these days about how holding a second referendum on Brexit would be "undemocratic" and "go against the spirit of referendums". However repeating a vote doesn't seem all that strange in a democracy. The UK itself holds parliamentary elections every 5 years or even less frequently if the government dissolves parliament. Other countries routinely hold elections every 4 years or even 2 years in the case of US Congress.
So what's the big deal about holding a second Brexit vote? Wouldn't it be akin to choosing a new government after a few years? Why can voters change their mind about who runs the country but cannot change their mind about the outcome of a referendum?
united-kingdom brexit referendum
2
More to the point: what's the big deal about repeating a referendum, when the ERG's second in command is asking for an early repeat of May's confidence vote -- on the basis that had they known what it entailed many would have not voted the same way, no less?
– Denis de Bernardy
4 hours ago
3
Why not just hold another vote until you get the result you want? That is clearly the slippery slope another reference will cause, especially when we haven't even implemented brexit yet. If you treat this referendum like a presidential election that everybody has voted on, it would be as absurd as somebody winning the presidential election on November, then having ANOTHER presidential election on December before that person even took office because you weren't happy with the previous result.
– Matthew Liu
3 hours ago
@Fizz while that's the case, this is actually a good question (IMHO) because the talking points that Jonathan mentions ('undemocratic' and 'against the spirits of referendums') are used by those opposing it. In addition to that, the referendum, even in a slightly different form, is still about the same issue that we've come to know as Brexit.
– JJJ
2 hours ago
add a comment |
There's a lot of talk in the UK these days about how holding a second referendum on Brexit would be "undemocratic" and "go against the spirit of referendums". However repeating a vote doesn't seem all that strange in a democracy. The UK itself holds parliamentary elections every 5 years or even less frequently if the government dissolves parliament. Other countries routinely hold elections every 4 years or even 2 years in the case of US Congress.
So what's the big deal about holding a second Brexit vote? Wouldn't it be akin to choosing a new government after a few years? Why can voters change their mind about who runs the country but cannot change their mind about the outcome of a referendum?
united-kingdom brexit referendum
There's a lot of talk in the UK these days about how holding a second referendum on Brexit would be "undemocratic" and "go against the spirit of referendums". However repeating a vote doesn't seem all that strange in a democracy. The UK itself holds parliamentary elections every 5 years or even less frequently if the government dissolves parliament. Other countries routinely hold elections every 4 years or even 2 years in the case of US Congress.
So what's the big deal about holding a second Brexit vote? Wouldn't it be akin to choosing a new government after a few years? Why can voters change their mind about who runs the country but cannot change their mind about the outcome of a referendum?
united-kingdom brexit referendum
united-kingdom brexit referendum
edited 4 hours ago
JJJ
6,00322454
6,00322454
asked 4 hours ago
JonathanReezJonathanReez
14.7k1784166
14.7k1784166
2
More to the point: what's the big deal about repeating a referendum, when the ERG's second in command is asking for an early repeat of May's confidence vote -- on the basis that had they known what it entailed many would have not voted the same way, no less?
– Denis de Bernardy
4 hours ago
3
Why not just hold another vote until you get the result you want? That is clearly the slippery slope another reference will cause, especially when we haven't even implemented brexit yet. If you treat this referendum like a presidential election that everybody has voted on, it would be as absurd as somebody winning the presidential election on November, then having ANOTHER presidential election on December before that person even took office because you weren't happy with the previous result.
– Matthew Liu
3 hours ago
@Fizz while that's the case, this is actually a good question (IMHO) because the talking points that Jonathan mentions ('undemocratic' and 'against the spirits of referendums') are used by those opposing it. In addition to that, the referendum, even in a slightly different form, is still about the same issue that we've come to know as Brexit.
– JJJ
2 hours ago
add a comment |
2
More to the point: what's the big deal about repeating a referendum, when the ERG's second in command is asking for an early repeat of May's confidence vote -- on the basis that had they known what it entailed many would have not voted the same way, no less?
– Denis de Bernardy
4 hours ago
3
Why not just hold another vote until you get the result you want? That is clearly the slippery slope another reference will cause, especially when we haven't even implemented brexit yet. If you treat this referendum like a presidential election that everybody has voted on, it would be as absurd as somebody winning the presidential election on November, then having ANOTHER presidential election on December before that person even took office because you weren't happy with the previous result.
– Matthew Liu
3 hours ago
@Fizz while that's the case, this is actually a good question (IMHO) because the talking points that Jonathan mentions ('undemocratic' and 'against the spirits of referendums') are used by those opposing it. In addition to that, the referendum, even in a slightly different form, is still about the same issue that we've come to know as Brexit.
– JJJ
2 hours ago
2
2
More to the point: what's the big deal about repeating a referendum, when the ERG's second in command is asking for an early repeat of May's confidence vote -- on the basis that had they known what it entailed many would have not voted the same way, no less?
– Denis de Bernardy
4 hours ago
More to the point: what's the big deal about repeating a referendum, when the ERG's second in command is asking for an early repeat of May's confidence vote -- on the basis that had they known what it entailed many would have not voted the same way, no less?
– Denis de Bernardy
4 hours ago
3
3
Why not just hold another vote until you get the result you want? That is clearly the slippery slope another reference will cause, especially when we haven't even implemented brexit yet. If you treat this referendum like a presidential election that everybody has voted on, it would be as absurd as somebody winning the presidential election on November, then having ANOTHER presidential election on December before that person even took office because you weren't happy with the previous result.
– Matthew Liu
3 hours ago
Why not just hold another vote until you get the result you want? That is clearly the slippery slope another reference will cause, especially when we haven't even implemented brexit yet. If you treat this referendum like a presidential election that everybody has voted on, it would be as absurd as somebody winning the presidential election on November, then having ANOTHER presidential election on December before that person even took office because you weren't happy with the previous result.
– Matthew Liu
3 hours ago
@Fizz while that's the case, this is actually a good question (IMHO) because the talking points that Jonathan mentions ('undemocratic' and 'against the spirits of referendums') are used by those opposing it. In addition to that, the referendum, even in a slightly different form, is still about the same issue that we've come to know as Brexit.
– JJJ
2 hours ago
@Fizz while that's the case, this is actually a good question (IMHO) because the talking points that Jonathan mentions ('undemocratic' and 'against the spirits of referendums') are used by those opposing it. In addition to that, the referendum, even in a slightly different form, is still about the same issue that we've come to know as Brexit.
– JJJ
2 hours ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
When a politician is elected, the voters assume that he or she will be put in office very soon. How many times can you say in a western democracy that a politician was elected, but never actually took office?
The decision by the UK to leave the EU was elected by the voters, but the UK is still in the EU. If the UK holds another referendum and the Remainers win, who's to say that the Leavers can't demand a 3rd referendum? Or 4th? What's the point?
1
You're applying two different standards. On the one hand side you're comparing well functioning democratic voting with a referendum that's fuming with lies and campaign finance law violations. In less well functioning "democracies" calls to re-run elections are a regular occurrence. Whether they do occur is another matter, but you can't just assume that a well run democratic vote compares with something reminiscent of a banana republic.
– Denis de Bernardy
4 hours ago
@DenisdeBernardy are you sure general elections in stable democracies are completely free of lies and don't have campaign finance law violations? I think that's wishful thinking. Some examples: G.W. Bush, Obama & Trump.
– JJJ
3 hours ago
@JJJ: Not sure at all. My initial comment on this answer literally was: "Hillary Clinton? Al Gore?" But then he edited the answer so it's much more detailed, so I switched to the one above.
– Denis de Bernardy
3 hours ago
add a comment |
The difference between such one-off referendums and general elections is that everyone knows the general election results are only 'used' for the next term. Indeed, when you vote for a politician in a general election (assuming this takes place in a stable democracy) you know you will get another vote in a certain number of years time.
The difference with the Brexit referendum is that it wasn't clear how it would be implemented. Given the gravity of the matter in the referendum, even those opposed took it seriously, however, it was still a non-binding referendum, it was advisory. The fact that rules weren't / aren't clear to everyone means that people will have different opinions on it. In particular, those who got the result they wanted won't want another referendum and those who think they can win this time might want one.
The big problem with doing such referendums over and over again is that it continues the uncertainty. And even after a second referendum, whatever the outcome, there will be calls for a third, etc. The big problem here is obviously that the rules weren't clear when they had the first referendum. For example, they could have said: we will have a referendum now and then we agree with all parties involved that that result will be it, at least for the next X years. That way, at least everyone knows where they stand and what the result means for them.
Then there's the problem that's specific to Brexit, it's a very complicated issue, much more complicated then installing a couple of hundred new politicians and some staff. As you say, some countries have elections every few years, but in the case of Brexit it has taken that long already to prepare for actually leaving. And that is only the first step, then the UK will want to negotiate their future relationship.
All in all, the problems are twofold: the parties involved hadn't pre-agreed the rules (not even as a 'gentlemen's agreement') and the matter at hand is too complex to change one's position every few years.
add a comment |
At a formal level you're asking about two different standards
Where elections are usually not a source of contention in the UK, the referendum certainly was. Because of a long string of lies and at times dispiriting fear mongering during the campaign (remember the bus that got disowned by Farage the day after Leave won?), and because of campaign finance law violations.
And just to be clear here: even in reasonably well functioning democracies, elections are contested and there's no shortage of campaign finance violations, corruption, and at times outright fraud, or voter suppression, or even legal challenges of the result (remember Gore?). Still, it works relatively well compared to, say, [your pick of a less mature democracy; ideally one with a semi- or full-blown autocrat at the helm].
If you instead compare the Brexit referendum with elections in less well run democracies, where blatant lies and campaign law violations are more commonplace, things become murkier. You'll find that, actually, observers do suggest an honest rerun every so often, when it's not the voters themselves who ask for one. (Whether it gets done is another story entirely of course, which makes it a non-story in western countries unless people get shot at for protesting the vote.)
At a more substantive level there are two sides of this coin
On the one hand side you've May and politicians on both sides of the political spectrum who are arguing that if voters are asked to vote for this again, especially without seeing it put into place before that, then they will lose even more faith in their politicians and their democratic institutions. And I agree with that argument up to a point. You can't put something back to the voters until they give the answer you want (which, fun fact, EU leaders technically did in a sense with the Lisbon treaty). But I'd also stress that in May's specific case, it's also and actually about keeping the Conservative Party intact. And even if we leave the bad faith and the political calculations aside, there's probably something to be said about gaining and retaining voters' trust to begin with.
On the other hand side, those who support a People's Vote argue that hey, those who voted Leave had no idea about what they were signing up for. They were lied to, and promised the moon, etc. They can now actually make up their mind and decide on whether it's a good idea with a concrete deal before them. They actually have an excellent point -- whichever other option(s) voters would want to see on the ballot (No Brexit, or No Deal, or both). And it makes a good deal of sense, when you consider that defending the concrete but imperfect things that you have can't really win a battle in the court of public opinion, against some hypothetical, as of yet defined, and very wishful place some would like to take you.
More to the point, and as I've noted in an earlier comment to your question, the real wtf here is: what's the big deal about repeating a referendum, when the ERG's second in command asked earlier today for an early repeat of May's confidence vote -- on the basis, wait for it, that had they known what it entailed, many would have not voted the same way?
add a comment |
If the subject-matter or circumstances of the "repeat" referendum are sufficiently different, there is no difference from elections.
Yeah, I know the typical argument against repeats is the "democratic deficit" they supposedly have by asking the "same question". (I'll come back to this.) But before we get to that: one could ask the question in reverse: why would a candidate that has failed an election be allowed to run again later for the same office?! After all, the public said no to him. Should he be allowed to run until he gets his way? Of course, even if all candidates are exactly the same on a later ballot, chances are something has changed: their platforms etc.
Now as for the "same question" referendums, the much criticized repeat referendums for EU Treaty changes/adoptions didn't ever have the exact same question, even if it was nominally the same on paper. There were in fact concessions and renegotiations before the "same" question was asked in all cases. The referendum repeat that was preceded by least concessions was the one with the lowest initial turnout: Nice 2001 in Ireland. In that case, the changes were more declarative than legally binding and efforts focused on a better campaign. For the other repeats, the concessions were more substantive and based on the specific objections of the "no" campaigns; after the Danish referendum of 1992, there was a legally binding [under international law] document agreed by all EU heads of state, although its position within the EU legal framework was considered somewhat awkward. The Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 also resulted in substantive concessions; these took a legal form similar to the solution to the 1992 Danish problem, but it was also boosted by an agreement to include a specific part of it in a future EU treaty, as to clarify its position in EU law as well. (The convenient legal vehicle that was found for the latter was Croatia's accession treaty of 2011.)
Finally, how does this relate to Brexit referendum(s)? The more concrete proposals I know about don't simply ask for a repeat (although I have no doubt the vague notion may have been publicly discussed). Instead the proposal(s) I know about were for a "confirmatory" referendum, meaning the now-concrete deal would be voted on, instead of a general/vague idea. Arguably this is somewhat different than a new referendum following concessions/renegotiation. But in either case, the public has substantially new information that it can use to answer the "same" question, which in the case of a Brexit confirmatory referendum wouldn't even be nominally the same. (Bercow would be pleased.)
Finally, I will concede that the topic of repeat referendums is still controversial and does not a lot of precedents.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40369%2fwhats-the-difference-between-repeating-elections-every-few-years-and-repeating%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
When a politician is elected, the voters assume that he or she will be put in office very soon. How many times can you say in a western democracy that a politician was elected, but never actually took office?
The decision by the UK to leave the EU was elected by the voters, but the UK is still in the EU. If the UK holds another referendum and the Remainers win, who's to say that the Leavers can't demand a 3rd referendum? Or 4th? What's the point?
1
You're applying two different standards. On the one hand side you're comparing well functioning democratic voting with a referendum that's fuming with lies and campaign finance law violations. In less well functioning "democracies" calls to re-run elections are a regular occurrence. Whether they do occur is another matter, but you can't just assume that a well run democratic vote compares with something reminiscent of a banana republic.
– Denis de Bernardy
4 hours ago
@DenisdeBernardy are you sure general elections in stable democracies are completely free of lies and don't have campaign finance law violations? I think that's wishful thinking. Some examples: G.W. Bush, Obama & Trump.
– JJJ
3 hours ago
@JJJ: Not sure at all. My initial comment on this answer literally was: "Hillary Clinton? Al Gore?" But then he edited the answer so it's much more detailed, so I switched to the one above.
– Denis de Bernardy
3 hours ago
add a comment |
When a politician is elected, the voters assume that he or she will be put in office very soon. How many times can you say in a western democracy that a politician was elected, but never actually took office?
The decision by the UK to leave the EU was elected by the voters, but the UK is still in the EU. If the UK holds another referendum and the Remainers win, who's to say that the Leavers can't demand a 3rd referendum? Or 4th? What's the point?
1
You're applying two different standards. On the one hand side you're comparing well functioning democratic voting with a referendum that's fuming with lies and campaign finance law violations. In less well functioning "democracies" calls to re-run elections are a regular occurrence. Whether they do occur is another matter, but you can't just assume that a well run democratic vote compares with something reminiscent of a banana republic.
– Denis de Bernardy
4 hours ago
@DenisdeBernardy are you sure general elections in stable democracies are completely free of lies and don't have campaign finance law violations? I think that's wishful thinking. Some examples: G.W. Bush, Obama & Trump.
– JJJ
3 hours ago
@JJJ: Not sure at all. My initial comment on this answer literally was: "Hillary Clinton? Al Gore?" But then he edited the answer so it's much more detailed, so I switched to the one above.
– Denis de Bernardy
3 hours ago
add a comment |
When a politician is elected, the voters assume that he or she will be put in office very soon. How many times can you say in a western democracy that a politician was elected, but never actually took office?
The decision by the UK to leave the EU was elected by the voters, but the UK is still in the EU. If the UK holds another referendum and the Remainers win, who's to say that the Leavers can't demand a 3rd referendum? Or 4th? What's the point?
When a politician is elected, the voters assume that he or she will be put in office very soon. How many times can you say in a western democracy that a politician was elected, but never actually took office?
The decision by the UK to leave the EU was elected by the voters, but the UK is still in the EU. If the UK holds another referendum and the Remainers win, who's to say that the Leavers can't demand a 3rd referendum? Or 4th? What's the point?
answered 4 hours ago
user3163495user3163495
1666
1666
1
You're applying two different standards. On the one hand side you're comparing well functioning democratic voting with a referendum that's fuming with lies and campaign finance law violations. In less well functioning "democracies" calls to re-run elections are a regular occurrence. Whether they do occur is another matter, but you can't just assume that a well run democratic vote compares with something reminiscent of a banana republic.
– Denis de Bernardy
4 hours ago
@DenisdeBernardy are you sure general elections in stable democracies are completely free of lies and don't have campaign finance law violations? I think that's wishful thinking. Some examples: G.W. Bush, Obama & Trump.
– JJJ
3 hours ago
@JJJ: Not sure at all. My initial comment on this answer literally was: "Hillary Clinton? Al Gore?" But then he edited the answer so it's much more detailed, so I switched to the one above.
– Denis de Bernardy
3 hours ago
add a comment |
1
You're applying two different standards. On the one hand side you're comparing well functioning democratic voting with a referendum that's fuming with lies and campaign finance law violations. In less well functioning "democracies" calls to re-run elections are a regular occurrence. Whether they do occur is another matter, but you can't just assume that a well run democratic vote compares with something reminiscent of a banana republic.
– Denis de Bernardy
4 hours ago
@DenisdeBernardy are you sure general elections in stable democracies are completely free of lies and don't have campaign finance law violations? I think that's wishful thinking. Some examples: G.W. Bush, Obama & Trump.
– JJJ
3 hours ago
@JJJ: Not sure at all. My initial comment on this answer literally was: "Hillary Clinton? Al Gore?" But then he edited the answer so it's much more detailed, so I switched to the one above.
– Denis de Bernardy
3 hours ago
1
1
You're applying two different standards. On the one hand side you're comparing well functioning democratic voting with a referendum that's fuming with lies and campaign finance law violations. In less well functioning "democracies" calls to re-run elections are a regular occurrence. Whether they do occur is another matter, but you can't just assume that a well run democratic vote compares with something reminiscent of a banana republic.
– Denis de Bernardy
4 hours ago
You're applying two different standards. On the one hand side you're comparing well functioning democratic voting with a referendum that's fuming with lies and campaign finance law violations. In less well functioning "democracies" calls to re-run elections are a regular occurrence. Whether they do occur is another matter, but you can't just assume that a well run democratic vote compares with something reminiscent of a banana republic.
– Denis de Bernardy
4 hours ago
@DenisdeBernardy are you sure general elections in stable democracies are completely free of lies and don't have campaign finance law violations? I think that's wishful thinking. Some examples: G.W. Bush, Obama & Trump.
– JJJ
3 hours ago
@DenisdeBernardy are you sure general elections in stable democracies are completely free of lies and don't have campaign finance law violations? I think that's wishful thinking. Some examples: G.W. Bush, Obama & Trump.
– JJJ
3 hours ago
@JJJ: Not sure at all. My initial comment on this answer literally was: "Hillary Clinton? Al Gore?" But then he edited the answer so it's much more detailed, so I switched to the one above.
– Denis de Bernardy
3 hours ago
@JJJ: Not sure at all. My initial comment on this answer literally was: "Hillary Clinton? Al Gore?" But then he edited the answer so it's much more detailed, so I switched to the one above.
– Denis de Bernardy
3 hours ago
add a comment |
The difference between such one-off referendums and general elections is that everyone knows the general election results are only 'used' for the next term. Indeed, when you vote for a politician in a general election (assuming this takes place in a stable democracy) you know you will get another vote in a certain number of years time.
The difference with the Brexit referendum is that it wasn't clear how it would be implemented. Given the gravity of the matter in the referendum, even those opposed took it seriously, however, it was still a non-binding referendum, it was advisory. The fact that rules weren't / aren't clear to everyone means that people will have different opinions on it. In particular, those who got the result they wanted won't want another referendum and those who think they can win this time might want one.
The big problem with doing such referendums over and over again is that it continues the uncertainty. And even after a second referendum, whatever the outcome, there will be calls for a third, etc. The big problem here is obviously that the rules weren't clear when they had the first referendum. For example, they could have said: we will have a referendum now and then we agree with all parties involved that that result will be it, at least for the next X years. That way, at least everyone knows where they stand and what the result means for them.
Then there's the problem that's specific to Brexit, it's a very complicated issue, much more complicated then installing a couple of hundred new politicians and some staff. As you say, some countries have elections every few years, but in the case of Brexit it has taken that long already to prepare for actually leaving. And that is only the first step, then the UK will want to negotiate their future relationship.
All in all, the problems are twofold: the parties involved hadn't pre-agreed the rules (not even as a 'gentlemen's agreement') and the matter at hand is too complex to change one's position every few years.
add a comment |
The difference between such one-off referendums and general elections is that everyone knows the general election results are only 'used' for the next term. Indeed, when you vote for a politician in a general election (assuming this takes place in a stable democracy) you know you will get another vote in a certain number of years time.
The difference with the Brexit referendum is that it wasn't clear how it would be implemented. Given the gravity of the matter in the referendum, even those opposed took it seriously, however, it was still a non-binding referendum, it was advisory. The fact that rules weren't / aren't clear to everyone means that people will have different opinions on it. In particular, those who got the result they wanted won't want another referendum and those who think they can win this time might want one.
The big problem with doing such referendums over and over again is that it continues the uncertainty. And even after a second referendum, whatever the outcome, there will be calls for a third, etc. The big problem here is obviously that the rules weren't clear when they had the first referendum. For example, they could have said: we will have a referendum now and then we agree with all parties involved that that result will be it, at least for the next X years. That way, at least everyone knows where they stand and what the result means for them.
Then there's the problem that's specific to Brexit, it's a very complicated issue, much more complicated then installing a couple of hundred new politicians and some staff. As you say, some countries have elections every few years, but in the case of Brexit it has taken that long already to prepare for actually leaving. And that is only the first step, then the UK will want to negotiate their future relationship.
All in all, the problems are twofold: the parties involved hadn't pre-agreed the rules (not even as a 'gentlemen's agreement') and the matter at hand is too complex to change one's position every few years.
add a comment |
The difference between such one-off referendums and general elections is that everyone knows the general election results are only 'used' for the next term. Indeed, when you vote for a politician in a general election (assuming this takes place in a stable democracy) you know you will get another vote in a certain number of years time.
The difference with the Brexit referendum is that it wasn't clear how it would be implemented. Given the gravity of the matter in the referendum, even those opposed took it seriously, however, it was still a non-binding referendum, it was advisory. The fact that rules weren't / aren't clear to everyone means that people will have different opinions on it. In particular, those who got the result they wanted won't want another referendum and those who think they can win this time might want one.
The big problem with doing such referendums over and over again is that it continues the uncertainty. And even after a second referendum, whatever the outcome, there will be calls for a third, etc. The big problem here is obviously that the rules weren't clear when they had the first referendum. For example, they could have said: we will have a referendum now and then we agree with all parties involved that that result will be it, at least for the next X years. That way, at least everyone knows where they stand and what the result means for them.
Then there's the problem that's specific to Brexit, it's a very complicated issue, much more complicated then installing a couple of hundred new politicians and some staff. As you say, some countries have elections every few years, but in the case of Brexit it has taken that long already to prepare for actually leaving. And that is only the first step, then the UK will want to negotiate their future relationship.
All in all, the problems are twofold: the parties involved hadn't pre-agreed the rules (not even as a 'gentlemen's agreement') and the matter at hand is too complex to change one's position every few years.
The difference between such one-off referendums and general elections is that everyone knows the general election results are only 'used' for the next term. Indeed, when you vote for a politician in a general election (assuming this takes place in a stable democracy) you know you will get another vote in a certain number of years time.
The difference with the Brexit referendum is that it wasn't clear how it would be implemented. Given the gravity of the matter in the referendum, even those opposed took it seriously, however, it was still a non-binding referendum, it was advisory. The fact that rules weren't / aren't clear to everyone means that people will have different opinions on it. In particular, those who got the result they wanted won't want another referendum and those who think they can win this time might want one.
The big problem with doing such referendums over and over again is that it continues the uncertainty. And even after a second referendum, whatever the outcome, there will be calls for a third, etc. The big problem here is obviously that the rules weren't clear when they had the first referendum. For example, they could have said: we will have a referendum now and then we agree with all parties involved that that result will be it, at least for the next X years. That way, at least everyone knows where they stand and what the result means for them.
Then there's the problem that's specific to Brexit, it's a very complicated issue, much more complicated then installing a couple of hundred new politicians and some staff. As you say, some countries have elections every few years, but in the case of Brexit it has taken that long already to prepare for actually leaving. And that is only the first step, then the UK will want to negotiate their future relationship.
All in all, the problems are twofold: the parties involved hadn't pre-agreed the rules (not even as a 'gentlemen's agreement') and the matter at hand is too complex to change one's position every few years.
answered 4 hours ago
JJJJJJ
6,00322454
6,00322454
add a comment |
add a comment |
At a formal level you're asking about two different standards
Where elections are usually not a source of contention in the UK, the referendum certainly was. Because of a long string of lies and at times dispiriting fear mongering during the campaign (remember the bus that got disowned by Farage the day after Leave won?), and because of campaign finance law violations.
And just to be clear here: even in reasonably well functioning democracies, elections are contested and there's no shortage of campaign finance violations, corruption, and at times outright fraud, or voter suppression, or even legal challenges of the result (remember Gore?). Still, it works relatively well compared to, say, [your pick of a less mature democracy; ideally one with a semi- or full-blown autocrat at the helm].
If you instead compare the Brexit referendum with elections in less well run democracies, where blatant lies and campaign law violations are more commonplace, things become murkier. You'll find that, actually, observers do suggest an honest rerun every so often, when it's not the voters themselves who ask for one. (Whether it gets done is another story entirely of course, which makes it a non-story in western countries unless people get shot at for protesting the vote.)
At a more substantive level there are two sides of this coin
On the one hand side you've May and politicians on both sides of the political spectrum who are arguing that if voters are asked to vote for this again, especially without seeing it put into place before that, then they will lose even more faith in their politicians and their democratic institutions. And I agree with that argument up to a point. You can't put something back to the voters until they give the answer you want (which, fun fact, EU leaders technically did in a sense with the Lisbon treaty). But I'd also stress that in May's specific case, it's also and actually about keeping the Conservative Party intact. And even if we leave the bad faith and the political calculations aside, there's probably something to be said about gaining and retaining voters' trust to begin with.
On the other hand side, those who support a People's Vote argue that hey, those who voted Leave had no idea about what they were signing up for. They were lied to, and promised the moon, etc. They can now actually make up their mind and decide on whether it's a good idea with a concrete deal before them. They actually have an excellent point -- whichever other option(s) voters would want to see on the ballot (No Brexit, or No Deal, or both). And it makes a good deal of sense, when you consider that defending the concrete but imperfect things that you have can't really win a battle in the court of public opinion, against some hypothetical, as of yet defined, and very wishful place some would like to take you.
More to the point, and as I've noted in an earlier comment to your question, the real wtf here is: what's the big deal about repeating a referendum, when the ERG's second in command asked earlier today for an early repeat of May's confidence vote -- on the basis, wait for it, that had they known what it entailed, many would have not voted the same way?
add a comment |
At a formal level you're asking about two different standards
Where elections are usually not a source of contention in the UK, the referendum certainly was. Because of a long string of lies and at times dispiriting fear mongering during the campaign (remember the bus that got disowned by Farage the day after Leave won?), and because of campaign finance law violations.
And just to be clear here: even in reasonably well functioning democracies, elections are contested and there's no shortage of campaign finance violations, corruption, and at times outright fraud, or voter suppression, or even legal challenges of the result (remember Gore?). Still, it works relatively well compared to, say, [your pick of a less mature democracy; ideally one with a semi- or full-blown autocrat at the helm].
If you instead compare the Brexit referendum with elections in less well run democracies, where blatant lies and campaign law violations are more commonplace, things become murkier. You'll find that, actually, observers do suggest an honest rerun every so often, when it's not the voters themselves who ask for one. (Whether it gets done is another story entirely of course, which makes it a non-story in western countries unless people get shot at for protesting the vote.)
At a more substantive level there are two sides of this coin
On the one hand side you've May and politicians on both sides of the political spectrum who are arguing that if voters are asked to vote for this again, especially without seeing it put into place before that, then they will lose even more faith in their politicians and their democratic institutions. And I agree with that argument up to a point. You can't put something back to the voters until they give the answer you want (which, fun fact, EU leaders technically did in a sense with the Lisbon treaty). But I'd also stress that in May's specific case, it's also and actually about keeping the Conservative Party intact. And even if we leave the bad faith and the political calculations aside, there's probably something to be said about gaining and retaining voters' trust to begin with.
On the other hand side, those who support a People's Vote argue that hey, those who voted Leave had no idea about what they were signing up for. They were lied to, and promised the moon, etc. They can now actually make up their mind and decide on whether it's a good idea with a concrete deal before them. They actually have an excellent point -- whichever other option(s) voters would want to see on the ballot (No Brexit, or No Deal, or both). And it makes a good deal of sense, when you consider that defending the concrete but imperfect things that you have can't really win a battle in the court of public opinion, against some hypothetical, as of yet defined, and very wishful place some would like to take you.
More to the point, and as I've noted in an earlier comment to your question, the real wtf here is: what's the big deal about repeating a referendum, when the ERG's second in command asked earlier today for an early repeat of May's confidence vote -- on the basis, wait for it, that had they known what it entailed, many would have not voted the same way?
add a comment |
At a formal level you're asking about two different standards
Where elections are usually not a source of contention in the UK, the referendum certainly was. Because of a long string of lies and at times dispiriting fear mongering during the campaign (remember the bus that got disowned by Farage the day after Leave won?), and because of campaign finance law violations.
And just to be clear here: even in reasonably well functioning democracies, elections are contested and there's no shortage of campaign finance violations, corruption, and at times outright fraud, or voter suppression, or even legal challenges of the result (remember Gore?). Still, it works relatively well compared to, say, [your pick of a less mature democracy; ideally one with a semi- or full-blown autocrat at the helm].
If you instead compare the Brexit referendum with elections in less well run democracies, where blatant lies and campaign law violations are more commonplace, things become murkier. You'll find that, actually, observers do suggest an honest rerun every so often, when it's not the voters themselves who ask for one. (Whether it gets done is another story entirely of course, which makes it a non-story in western countries unless people get shot at for protesting the vote.)
At a more substantive level there are two sides of this coin
On the one hand side you've May and politicians on both sides of the political spectrum who are arguing that if voters are asked to vote for this again, especially without seeing it put into place before that, then they will lose even more faith in their politicians and their democratic institutions. And I agree with that argument up to a point. You can't put something back to the voters until they give the answer you want (which, fun fact, EU leaders technically did in a sense with the Lisbon treaty). But I'd also stress that in May's specific case, it's also and actually about keeping the Conservative Party intact. And even if we leave the bad faith and the political calculations aside, there's probably something to be said about gaining and retaining voters' trust to begin with.
On the other hand side, those who support a People's Vote argue that hey, those who voted Leave had no idea about what they were signing up for. They were lied to, and promised the moon, etc. They can now actually make up their mind and decide on whether it's a good idea with a concrete deal before them. They actually have an excellent point -- whichever other option(s) voters would want to see on the ballot (No Brexit, or No Deal, or both). And it makes a good deal of sense, when you consider that defending the concrete but imperfect things that you have can't really win a battle in the court of public opinion, against some hypothetical, as of yet defined, and very wishful place some would like to take you.
More to the point, and as I've noted in an earlier comment to your question, the real wtf here is: what's the big deal about repeating a referendum, when the ERG's second in command asked earlier today for an early repeat of May's confidence vote -- on the basis, wait for it, that had they known what it entailed, many would have not voted the same way?
At a formal level you're asking about two different standards
Where elections are usually not a source of contention in the UK, the referendum certainly was. Because of a long string of lies and at times dispiriting fear mongering during the campaign (remember the bus that got disowned by Farage the day after Leave won?), and because of campaign finance law violations.
And just to be clear here: even in reasonably well functioning democracies, elections are contested and there's no shortage of campaign finance violations, corruption, and at times outright fraud, or voter suppression, or even legal challenges of the result (remember Gore?). Still, it works relatively well compared to, say, [your pick of a less mature democracy; ideally one with a semi- or full-blown autocrat at the helm].
If you instead compare the Brexit referendum with elections in less well run democracies, where blatant lies and campaign law violations are more commonplace, things become murkier. You'll find that, actually, observers do suggest an honest rerun every so often, when it's not the voters themselves who ask for one. (Whether it gets done is another story entirely of course, which makes it a non-story in western countries unless people get shot at for protesting the vote.)
At a more substantive level there are two sides of this coin
On the one hand side you've May and politicians on both sides of the political spectrum who are arguing that if voters are asked to vote for this again, especially without seeing it put into place before that, then they will lose even more faith in their politicians and their democratic institutions. And I agree with that argument up to a point. You can't put something back to the voters until they give the answer you want (which, fun fact, EU leaders technically did in a sense with the Lisbon treaty). But I'd also stress that in May's specific case, it's also and actually about keeping the Conservative Party intact. And even if we leave the bad faith and the political calculations aside, there's probably something to be said about gaining and retaining voters' trust to begin with.
On the other hand side, those who support a People's Vote argue that hey, those who voted Leave had no idea about what they were signing up for. They were lied to, and promised the moon, etc. They can now actually make up their mind and decide on whether it's a good idea with a concrete deal before them. They actually have an excellent point -- whichever other option(s) voters would want to see on the ballot (No Brexit, or No Deal, or both). And it makes a good deal of sense, when you consider that defending the concrete but imperfect things that you have can't really win a battle in the court of public opinion, against some hypothetical, as of yet defined, and very wishful place some would like to take you.
More to the point, and as I've noted in an earlier comment to your question, the real wtf here is: what's the big deal about repeating a referendum, when the ERG's second in command asked earlier today for an early repeat of May's confidence vote -- on the basis, wait for it, that had they known what it entailed, many would have not voted the same way?
edited 3 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
14.7k33967
14.7k33967
add a comment |
add a comment |
If the subject-matter or circumstances of the "repeat" referendum are sufficiently different, there is no difference from elections.
Yeah, I know the typical argument against repeats is the "democratic deficit" they supposedly have by asking the "same question". (I'll come back to this.) But before we get to that: one could ask the question in reverse: why would a candidate that has failed an election be allowed to run again later for the same office?! After all, the public said no to him. Should he be allowed to run until he gets his way? Of course, even if all candidates are exactly the same on a later ballot, chances are something has changed: their platforms etc.
Now as for the "same question" referendums, the much criticized repeat referendums for EU Treaty changes/adoptions didn't ever have the exact same question, even if it was nominally the same on paper. There were in fact concessions and renegotiations before the "same" question was asked in all cases. The referendum repeat that was preceded by least concessions was the one with the lowest initial turnout: Nice 2001 in Ireland. In that case, the changes were more declarative than legally binding and efforts focused on a better campaign. For the other repeats, the concessions were more substantive and based on the specific objections of the "no" campaigns; after the Danish referendum of 1992, there was a legally binding [under international law] document agreed by all EU heads of state, although its position within the EU legal framework was considered somewhat awkward. The Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 also resulted in substantive concessions; these took a legal form similar to the solution to the 1992 Danish problem, but it was also boosted by an agreement to include a specific part of it in a future EU treaty, as to clarify its position in EU law as well. (The convenient legal vehicle that was found for the latter was Croatia's accession treaty of 2011.)
Finally, how does this relate to Brexit referendum(s)? The more concrete proposals I know about don't simply ask for a repeat (although I have no doubt the vague notion may have been publicly discussed). Instead the proposal(s) I know about were for a "confirmatory" referendum, meaning the now-concrete deal would be voted on, instead of a general/vague idea. Arguably this is somewhat different than a new referendum following concessions/renegotiation. But in either case, the public has substantially new information that it can use to answer the "same" question, which in the case of a Brexit confirmatory referendum wouldn't even be nominally the same. (Bercow would be pleased.)
Finally, I will concede that the topic of repeat referendums is still controversial and does not a lot of precedents.
add a comment |
If the subject-matter or circumstances of the "repeat" referendum are sufficiently different, there is no difference from elections.
Yeah, I know the typical argument against repeats is the "democratic deficit" they supposedly have by asking the "same question". (I'll come back to this.) But before we get to that: one could ask the question in reverse: why would a candidate that has failed an election be allowed to run again later for the same office?! After all, the public said no to him. Should he be allowed to run until he gets his way? Of course, even if all candidates are exactly the same on a later ballot, chances are something has changed: their platforms etc.
Now as for the "same question" referendums, the much criticized repeat referendums for EU Treaty changes/adoptions didn't ever have the exact same question, even if it was nominally the same on paper. There were in fact concessions and renegotiations before the "same" question was asked in all cases. The referendum repeat that was preceded by least concessions was the one with the lowest initial turnout: Nice 2001 in Ireland. In that case, the changes were more declarative than legally binding and efforts focused on a better campaign. For the other repeats, the concessions were more substantive and based on the specific objections of the "no" campaigns; after the Danish referendum of 1992, there was a legally binding [under international law] document agreed by all EU heads of state, although its position within the EU legal framework was considered somewhat awkward. The Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 also resulted in substantive concessions; these took a legal form similar to the solution to the 1992 Danish problem, but it was also boosted by an agreement to include a specific part of it in a future EU treaty, as to clarify its position in EU law as well. (The convenient legal vehicle that was found for the latter was Croatia's accession treaty of 2011.)
Finally, how does this relate to Brexit referendum(s)? The more concrete proposals I know about don't simply ask for a repeat (although I have no doubt the vague notion may have been publicly discussed). Instead the proposal(s) I know about were for a "confirmatory" referendum, meaning the now-concrete deal would be voted on, instead of a general/vague idea. Arguably this is somewhat different than a new referendum following concessions/renegotiation. But in either case, the public has substantially new information that it can use to answer the "same" question, which in the case of a Brexit confirmatory referendum wouldn't even be nominally the same. (Bercow would be pleased.)
Finally, I will concede that the topic of repeat referendums is still controversial and does not a lot of precedents.
add a comment |
If the subject-matter or circumstances of the "repeat" referendum are sufficiently different, there is no difference from elections.
Yeah, I know the typical argument against repeats is the "democratic deficit" they supposedly have by asking the "same question". (I'll come back to this.) But before we get to that: one could ask the question in reverse: why would a candidate that has failed an election be allowed to run again later for the same office?! After all, the public said no to him. Should he be allowed to run until he gets his way? Of course, even if all candidates are exactly the same on a later ballot, chances are something has changed: their platforms etc.
Now as for the "same question" referendums, the much criticized repeat referendums for EU Treaty changes/adoptions didn't ever have the exact same question, even if it was nominally the same on paper. There were in fact concessions and renegotiations before the "same" question was asked in all cases. The referendum repeat that was preceded by least concessions was the one with the lowest initial turnout: Nice 2001 in Ireland. In that case, the changes were more declarative than legally binding and efforts focused on a better campaign. For the other repeats, the concessions were more substantive and based on the specific objections of the "no" campaigns; after the Danish referendum of 1992, there was a legally binding [under international law] document agreed by all EU heads of state, although its position within the EU legal framework was considered somewhat awkward. The Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 also resulted in substantive concessions; these took a legal form similar to the solution to the 1992 Danish problem, but it was also boosted by an agreement to include a specific part of it in a future EU treaty, as to clarify its position in EU law as well. (The convenient legal vehicle that was found for the latter was Croatia's accession treaty of 2011.)
Finally, how does this relate to Brexit referendum(s)? The more concrete proposals I know about don't simply ask for a repeat (although I have no doubt the vague notion may have been publicly discussed). Instead the proposal(s) I know about were for a "confirmatory" referendum, meaning the now-concrete deal would be voted on, instead of a general/vague idea. Arguably this is somewhat different than a new referendum following concessions/renegotiation. But in either case, the public has substantially new information that it can use to answer the "same" question, which in the case of a Brexit confirmatory referendum wouldn't even be nominally the same. (Bercow would be pleased.)
Finally, I will concede that the topic of repeat referendums is still controversial and does not a lot of precedents.
If the subject-matter or circumstances of the "repeat" referendum are sufficiently different, there is no difference from elections.
Yeah, I know the typical argument against repeats is the "democratic deficit" they supposedly have by asking the "same question". (I'll come back to this.) But before we get to that: one could ask the question in reverse: why would a candidate that has failed an election be allowed to run again later for the same office?! After all, the public said no to him. Should he be allowed to run until he gets his way? Of course, even if all candidates are exactly the same on a later ballot, chances are something has changed: their platforms etc.
Now as for the "same question" referendums, the much criticized repeat referendums for EU Treaty changes/adoptions didn't ever have the exact same question, even if it was nominally the same on paper. There were in fact concessions and renegotiations before the "same" question was asked in all cases. The referendum repeat that was preceded by least concessions was the one with the lowest initial turnout: Nice 2001 in Ireland. In that case, the changes were more declarative than legally binding and efforts focused on a better campaign. For the other repeats, the concessions were more substantive and based on the specific objections of the "no" campaigns; after the Danish referendum of 1992, there was a legally binding [under international law] document agreed by all EU heads of state, although its position within the EU legal framework was considered somewhat awkward. The Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 also resulted in substantive concessions; these took a legal form similar to the solution to the 1992 Danish problem, but it was also boosted by an agreement to include a specific part of it in a future EU treaty, as to clarify its position in EU law as well. (The convenient legal vehicle that was found for the latter was Croatia's accession treaty of 2011.)
Finally, how does this relate to Brexit referendum(s)? The more concrete proposals I know about don't simply ask for a repeat (although I have no doubt the vague notion may have been publicly discussed). Instead the proposal(s) I know about were for a "confirmatory" referendum, meaning the now-concrete deal would be voted on, instead of a general/vague idea. Arguably this is somewhat different than a new referendum following concessions/renegotiation. But in either case, the public has substantially new information that it can use to answer the "same" question, which in the case of a Brexit confirmatory referendum wouldn't even be nominally the same. (Bercow would be pleased.)
Finally, I will concede that the topic of repeat referendums is still controversial and does not a lot of precedents.
edited 21 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
FizzFizz
14.1k23390
14.1k23390
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40369%2fwhats-the-difference-between-repeating-elections-every-few-years-and-repeating%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
More to the point: what's the big deal about repeating a referendum, when the ERG's second in command is asking for an early repeat of May's confidence vote -- on the basis that had they known what it entailed many would have not voted the same way, no less?
– Denis de Bernardy
4 hours ago
3
Why not just hold another vote until you get the result you want? That is clearly the slippery slope another reference will cause, especially when we haven't even implemented brexit yet. If you treat this referendum like a presidential election that everybody has voted on, it would be as absurd as somebody winning the presidential election on November, then having ANOTHER presidential election on December before that person even took office because you weren't happy with the previous result.
– Matthew Liu
3 hours ago
@Fizz while that's the case, this is actually a good question (IMHO) because the talking points that Jonathan mentions ('undemocratic' and 'against the spirits of referendums') are used by those opposing it. In addition to that, the referendum, even in a slightly different form, is still about the same issue that we've come to know as Brexit.
– JJJ
2 hours ago