Hacker News Reader

Comment by m0zg | Hacker News Reader

Of course it "failed". The government did everything it could to sabotage it and arrive at as unfavorable a set of exit conditions as possible. Even if she did want to get a good deal, May doesn't strike me as a cutthroat negotiator. Couple this with her unwillingness to abide by the will of the people (the size of the voting margin is somewhat irrelevant in a properly functioning democracy), and you get this. This was 100% predictable right from the start.

Like elections, referenda have consequences. You don't get a re-do just because you didn't like the outcome. To say otherwise opens you up to the same kind of bullshit when things turn out the way you like and the _other_ side doesn't like the result.

View on HN

> the size of the voting margin is somewhat irrelevant in a properly functioning democracy

Literally, no. The size of the margin is a direct factor in many democratic processes and determines how resilient the decision is to subsequent challenge. Major, foundational changes are rarely decided by simple majorities in one event.

> You don't get a re-do just because you didn't like the outcome. To say otherwise opens you up to the same kind of bullshit

You just called some referendums "bullshit". Not very democratic of you. Follow-up referendums are totally valid democratic process, for example because sometimes you have widespread fraudulent claims that are later exposed to be lies. As the public becomes more educated, repolling to verify the public will is absolutely proper functioning and indeed and very essence of democracy.

Brexit has been sabotaged by a conspiracy by May? You seriously believe she is devious enough? This is tin-foil hat nonsense.

Brexit is and will be a failure by definition - simply because it was never specified exactly what it involved. There are 1000s of ways to NOT be a member of the EU. "Brexit" covers all of them so leave-supporting politicians have been arguing furiously on the basis that their particular version of "not being in the EU anymore" reflects the "will of the people".

The "Leave" movement consisted of many incompatible positions on the future relationship - this was made clear in the run up to the referendum. Many Brexit supporters advocated a Norway (EEA) type relationship, others wanted to stay in the Customs Union, others wanted a Canada free trade type of relationship, for other the European Court of Justice was the red line, for a significant number immigrants were the problem, etc.

Surprise, surprise, no matter what May presented was going to be objectionable to a majority particularly if you include the remain supporters. There is no conspiracy required to see that this circle is impossible to square.

The truth is that May never consulted to find out what could fly.

A brexit that involved staying in the EEA would find a parliamentary majority, even now.

What sort of "good deal" do you think May could realistically have extracted from the EU? Everything I've read has implied that the Brexit options ranged from "poor" to "apocalyptically bad".

Is that what they say on TV nowadays? Somehow Britain existed for 2 thousand years without the EU all the way until 1973, and now for it to exist without the EU (and presumably with stronger ties to the US) would be "apocalyptically" bad? This doesn't pass the sniff test, IMO.

I don't watch TV. This is from numerous print sources, but especially The Economist. And you yourself described the failed plan as "as unfavorable a set of exit conditions as possible", so I'm still waiting to hear what a favorable set of exit conditions would have looked like - one that actually stood a chance of getting both UK and EU approval.

> You don't get a re-do just because you didn't like the outcome.

Not asking for a "re-do," asking for a vote on the final terms of the agreement. There is a lot precedent for voting on the final deal, e.g. trade union negotiations.

> unwillingness to abide by the will of the people

"The will of the people" is her catch phrase, the brexit vote is the only mandate this shows.

This comment does not suggest a great level of familiarity with British politics or the Brexit process.

In 1997, Wales held a referendum on forming a National Assembly with devolved powers from Westminster. The result was 50.3% in favour of devolution. Theresa May and a large number of other Conservative MPs voted against the establishment of the Assembly, contrary to the result of the referendum. The Assembly was eventually established in 1998.

In 2005, the Conservative party manifesto included a pledge to call a second referendum on the Welsh assembly, with the option to abolish it.

The people who are saying that we should respect the result of this referendum have a proven track record of not respecting the results of other referendums.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-46863044

> You don't get a re-do just because you didn't like the outcome.

Yeah you do; it's the foundation of a democracy. It's why we have such frequent elections.

The referendum was non-binding. It would be entirely legitimate for Parliament to say "We can't obtain a satisfactory outcome and have opted to remain in the EU as it's a superior economic option." You don't continue to take your sovereign nation over the cliff because of an unreasonable minority of citizens (whether or not they were a majority of those who voiced their opinions in said referendum).

This is really curious. Are there any systems that govern well that don’t recognize democratic principles?

I’m trying to figure out how the U.K. can make decisions given that very few will have a literal majority given that there are so many non-voters (eg, babies and comatose).

What is a better form of determining the will of the people than an election?

In the US there is a constitution so huge changes can’t be made by referendum. Would the U.K. adapt a system like that? And how could they if it required 50.1% of every soul in the U.K. to vote for it?

Define "govern well". Is that where the will of the people is aligned as closely as possible to public policy and government action? Is it where their quality of life is most improved regardless of their desires? It's a hard question to answer.

China governs very well as an autocracy, if I had to measure by the quality of life of its citizens. Yes, their will is not expressed through representation, but China has done more than any other nation or company to pull an enormous amount of humans out of poverty in a short amount of time. They have traded a reduction in representation and exerted will for a reduction in suffering.

It's a similar thought exercise to "What is success?" I cannot answer your question unfortunately.

I think I agree with your definition, but it’s pretty hard to know the true will of the people.

My ideal state is where the government executed the will of the people in spirit but not in letter. (Ie, people want heroin literally but happiness and freedom in spirit)

> This is really curious. Are there any systems that govern well that don’t recognize democratic principles?

The United States has two branches of Congress to insulate the country from the whims of the mob. Pure democracy has long been derided as an anti-pattern in government.

It was, nevertheless, the directly expressed will of the people. This is very much the social contract that holds the society together, and makes the government accountable to the people. Would you rather they just did as they please?

The real issue is that the people who voted "for Brexit" were all voting for different things, because it wasn't at all articulated what "Brexit" would look like. Now that that's better understood, there should absolutely be a second referendum, probably with three ranked options:

1. Stay

2. Soft leave (May's deal)

3. Hard leave (No deal)

With months and months of nonstop coverage, one could now say that there's broad understanding of what these precise options mean (though probably not their longer-term consequences, especially of option 3).

In any case, you don't have to be "ignoring the will of the people" to go back and ask again now that there's better information.

Maybe the second referendum should just be between soft leave and hard leave, as the first referendum already settled the question of leave or remain.

Call it a runoff referendum.

People voting in such a referendum should still have the option to say "given these two leave options (and not, say, the fantasy one presented by Boris Johnson), I've realised they both suck and I'd prefer to just remain after all."

Having it as a ranked ballot with runoff allows the further refinement of distinguishing between options like:

- I'd like a soft Brexit, and if I can't have that, I'd prefer a hard Brexit over remaining.

- I'd really like to remain, but if I can't have that I'd rather a soft Brexit.

- I'd really like to remain, and I have no second choice.

The newspapers will scream that ranked voting is a conspiracy of the liberal elite to deny the will of the people.

You're probably right, though that would be pretty funny, given that ranked voting would actually give the leave side a better chance since it would avoid them getting split.

...and keep asking until you get the answer that truly answers the will of the people?

Could you make the same argument that people voted yes for multiple reasons?

I think it’s difficult to see an outcome where a single referendum would be sufficient to solve all doubt.

Especially with three options, if no option has majority would you stick with original referendum? Or not exit?

Straw man. I say nothing that would suggest "keep asking". A single re-ask is justified by the change in available information. And in indeed, if the stay option was selected on this re-ask, but there was enough momentum for one of the leave options, that could merit another referendum in two, five, ten, whatever years— the key is to make certain that any future referendums on this subject are asking about clear, concrete options that are grounded in reality, and not fairy tales.

In any case, the point of a ranked ballot is you use runoff to reallocate the last place option votes, so you do get a clear majority in the end.

It's unclear (to me, at least) that "use runoff to reallocate the last place option votes" would be the best method here. And if such a three-option ballot were to take place, choosing (and explaining) the ranking/counting method to be used would be a crucial element.

In particular, "reallocate the last place votes" could lead to quickly rejecting an option that is hardly anybody's first choice, yet is everyone's second choice (or preferred fallback if they can't have their first choice). That doesn't seem like a desirable outcome.

Let me refine. The reason why I say “keep asking” is that what would happen if the 2nd referendum resulted in leave? It’s hard to tell if that would make me comfortable enough to not want another.

And what about the leavers? What justification would be sufficient for them to not call for a 3rd referendum.

I didn’t know that the UK used ranked ballots or how common they are.

My concern is largely that it’s hard for me to understand well given that all of these issues existed before the referendum and are not novel.

I agree that it's not the will of the people on face, however I think a re-do is okay in this situation. The UK is a representative democracy and their elected officials cannot arrive at a deal on something a majority of voters wanted, so what do you do then?

If you just default to force something through would violate the rights of those who voted for members who are voting "No" to the deal.

Polling has pretty consistently been anti-Brexit for awhile now, once the clear scope of what Brexit entails has actually been better understood. If another referendum were held today it would fail.

Why should a single non-binding vote taken at one point in time two years ago be considered forever irrevocable? Especially considering all of the pro-Brexit fake news and false promises at the time? Most of the promises made by the Brexiteers have turned out to be lies; the UK will not be better off, the NHS will not be better funded, etc. Given how so many underlying rationales for pro-Brexit votes have turned out to be false, of course it makes sense that a different result would be obtained today.

I tend to agree with your main point, but I'd be cautious about being so certain that the referendum would fail this time based on polling. The polls generally overestimated remain last time around (see Polls of Polls, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Unit...)

As recent history shows, polling is unreliable in heavily politically charged issues like this one. Oversample here, undersample there, and you get "95% probability of winning" the night before the loss.

Well the way EU is sticking it the UK would be reason enough to leave.

Assuming the UK wants to remain a sovereign nation rather than an EU client.

The UK already has the best possible deal with the EU of all countries on earth, in or out. They have all of the benefits of membership, and are exempted from some of the downsides: britain controls their own borders and their own currency. The status quo is the best the UK can ever hope to get, from that position, no matter what deal you make it'll be worse than where you are. That's not the "EU sticking it to the UK", that's just reality.

Yes, definitely. Override uneducated decisions that harm the republic, regardless of "the will of the people" [1] [2] [3] [4]. That is exactly why republics exist versus direct democracy.

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” -- Winston Churchill (edit: supposedly Churchill did not say this; I'm keeping it, as it helps express the idea)

Disclaimer: American

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-majority-of-british-peo... (POLL: A majority of British people regret voting for Brexit)

[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-polls/britain-... (Britain would now vote to stay in the EU by six point margin, new poll shows)

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/25/protest-vot... (‘I thought I’d put in a protest vote’: the people who regret voting leave)

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United... (Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum)

But "the republic" is not a uniform mass. What's good for some is bad for others. It is far from certain for me at least that the huge influx of cheap labor from Eastern Europe does not harm the lower classes in Britain. I'm pretty certain, on the other hand, that this works extremely well for the upper classes.

Besides, given the quality and moral scruples of "decision makers" that governments are usually comprised of, why would you so completely trust them with the fate of the republic in the first place, especially if the populace does not have the benefit of either the first or the second amendment of US constitution?

This strikes me as a hypocritical position. I bet you'd say otherwise if e.g. the will of the people was to remain, but the government decided to exit, because in their estimation it'd be better for Britain. You can't pick and choose. If your position is that government knows best, you should be prepared that the government will make decisions you don't like, too.

> This strikes me as a hypocritical position. I bet you'd say otherwise if e.g. the will of the people was to remain, but the government decided to exit, because in their estimation it'd be better for Britain.

Your bet would be wrong. If the data showed exit was superior, I'd hope the government went for it. I am entirely comfortable with the government making decisions I don't like; I'm American and am used it it.

But "the data" can show no such thing. As I said, it can be better for some and worse for others.

There are always winners and losers when decisions are made.

If there's an authority which can deem an election decision as "uneducated" and "harmful" then why have voting at all?

Why not just leave major decisions to a committee, if we're going to pick and choose which elections are decided "correctly."

> Why not just leave major decisions to a committee

We do this in the US, but the committee is formed of three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. People vote for representatives. Representatives enact legislation or executive orders. Those legislation or executive orders can be challenged by our judicial branch and thrown out, regardless of the will of the people and their representatives (see: same sex marriage, abortion, asking people if they're citizens on our census, blocking immigration from countries based on religion, laws that bring about voter suppression). Works well, checks and balances and all that.

Apocryphal quote.

https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest...

Wowzers

Referendums should be reserved to societal/moral issues (gay marriage, etc.). Otherwise, let's have a referendum asking the people if they want to keep paying taxes -- that should work well.

Quite extreme, I know. My point is that the government is elected to make decisions taking the economical and political consequences into account.

Expecting the general public opinion to be the end-all response to whatever decision is simply wrong.

I'd much rather we tedo the referendum, as a substantial number of people have changed their minds when faced with reality.

The directly expressed will of a minority of the UK was for "brexit", not "brexit no matter what".

The people can change their will at any time.

>as unfavorable a set of exit conditions as possible

Have you read the deal? I have.

The deal says that after the transition period there are no on-going arrangements. E.g. It's a no deal brexit.

The deal arranges what happens around the exit (E.g. so that if you buy something the day before, it still has to be delivered to you the day after).

> You don't get a re-do just because you didn't like the outcome.

Elections need to be held regularly. "one person, one vote, one time" is not a democracy.

> You don't get a re-do just because you didn't like the outcome. To say otherwise opens you up to the same kind of bullshit when things turn out the way you like and the _other_ side doesn't like the result.

Sure you do. Why not? And everyone is always vulnerable to revisions of their accomplishments: the fact that, in the US, the ACA was passed in 2010 doesn't mean that Republicans are banned from amending or changing it for all eternity.

Every two years, Americans get a re-do on voting for their representatives. And we... kind of get by.

I don't see why giving UK voters another vote is some terrible Stalinist undermining of democracy. It's split near 50/50 either way, and it seems silly to let whether it's raining or not, or Russian-sponsored media campaigns, determine an important policy matter like this. Voters in 2016 are not sacrosanct, brilliant policymakers whose decisions have to be respected for all eternity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com