Hacker News Reader

17m people might be in a rage, but the other 16m are equally in a rage, but I've not seen any civil war here yet. With respect, I think you are grossly over-reacting by mentioning civil war.

If it goes to a second referendum and remain win, then that is the "will of the people", not politicians/Westminster elite/EU telling people how to live their lives, it's the fellow man and woman on the street making the decisions just like it was the first time.

Resorting to violence is extremely unlikely. There are always nutbags around but I can't see this turning into anything more.

...and if it did I would remind those considering violence that the vast majority of the remain vote were young and healthy adults, while the leave vote was predominantly from those aged over 54 (1). Every year more and more leavers die, yet the remain ranks just get stronger and stronger as more kids turn 16. No amount of rose-tinted blitz spirit is going to help with those gammy-knees, dicky-tickers, and bad-backs if it comes to the rough stuff.

1 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36616028

You ignore that individual humans will change their political opinion as they age: Every year more and more remainers become leavers. This isn't the sort of thing where you can just wait for the leavers to die and then you win.

Someday, you too will be old. Guess how you will vote. :-) Some young person, much like yourself today, will be thinking that your death would make the voting turn out better and will be eagerly awaiting it. Eventually, they too will be old... and so it continues on forever.

Ageism: one of the few remaining socially acceptable types of hate!

Not ageism - the facts are older people were more likely to have voted for Brexit.

As for how effective a 18 year old Vs a 65 year old would be (all other things being equal) in a fight I guess could be considered ageist, and for that I apologise.

> It will leave 17m people in an absolute rage, and they have already murdered one MP. It'll get worse.

So, the decision making is kept as hostage by 17m angry people who won't accept that their side winning was based on pretty much fraudulent arguments? Maybe, just maybe, it could be in the long run worth paying the price of their anger and show that the modern democratic society has some backbone against these kind of people?

I can see that. However, it's just not how we try and do things in the UK - major policy changes have been caused by rioting through history, and governments do what they can to minimise it.

Remember, we don't have a codified constitution. A system such as our requires trying to find middle ground consensus above all else.

The people who want to Leave are way, way, way angrier than those who want to Remain. It's easier to just let them discover the lie in their deathbeds in 20 years...

Yeah, obviously the only way we can defeat the far right fanatics is by doing everything they want...

Surprisingly relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

The EU has to agree to an Article 50 extension--the UK can't extend it unilaterally. And there isn't really even time for a general election and a new government by the Article 50 deadline anyway, let alone time to negotiate a new deal. Article 50 can be revoked, but it can't be revoked in bad faith just to unilaterally give yourself an extension before re-invoking it again. And why would the EU grant an extension when Parliament has already turned down the best deal they're going to get?

It's entirely outside of the UK's hands right now. The best option will have to be to let the no deal Brexit happen, allow a binding Irish unification referendum within the next five years, and let the British people learn from their own mistakes.

> There is no winning here, and there is no situation in which we get to revoke Article 50 and the UK remains in the EU and all is well.

The ECJ has said that the UK can just revoke article 50 and stay in the EU[1]. I understand how this might be political suicide for some in the UK, but there is the option of takesies backsies (although that would happen to e.g. the EMA is unclear).

So one option is to hold another referendum, and see if the "stay" votes carry it this time around. If they do they revoke article 50, if not it's back to square #1.

1. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/10/uk-can-unil...

The ECJ is so hated by Leavers that taking their advice could see Parliament being burned to the ground.

It being legally possible is not the same as it being even remotely possible at this stage.

What needs to happen is the Leavers need to realise that No Deal isn't acceptable (they don't), and that more time is needed for a better deal or that it gets democratic backing.

Unfortunately, Parliament has already kind of voted no deal into law, and seem to have forgotten that, a fact the "European Research Group" - a bunch of Leavers in Parliament chaired by Jacob Rees-Mogg - is keen to remind them of that. Constantly.

Are there as many leavers now that it's know how messed up the hard exit would be?

What's the polling like?

> No Deal isn't acceptable

to whom?

> It's likely such a referendum will have two questions: Do you wish to leave or remain?; and, in the event of a vote towards leave, would you accept the backstop or would you prefer "No Deal"

That's interesting, as it also could have had one question, with three possible answers: What option do you prefer: Leave, No Deal Brexit, May's Deal Brexit?

I can very well imagine the presentation of these questions influencing the outcome (with Remain being more likely in my formulation), and I wonder how such things get considered when designing a referendum.

At that point you're basically discussion voting systems. Using first-past-the-post with three options, two of them being breixt, would heavily rig the vote towards remain.

Improving voting systems would be great (especially looking at the US, if you ever want more than two real parties), but doing it on the back of such an important decision would be problematic at best.

Here is a cutesy video for those new to FPTP voting issues: https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

True, I guess - voting systems in general is a topic that interests me. For the sake of not going too far off-topic, let's leave it at that :)

> She will go back to the EU and demand a new deal, likely with a hard time limit on the NI backstop, the main issue that caused tonight's defeat

Don't think that's going to be enough to swing 230 votes.

And it might be difficult to renegotiate with other 27 PMs.

and possibly a civil war

There is no chance of that.

"It will leave 17m people in an absolute rage, and they have already murdered one MP."

This is not appropriate.

> This will either result in a Remain vote and possibly a civil war (no, seriously)

The UK doesn't have enough guns to have a proper civil war. (It's amazing how far one has to reach for good news in this situation!)

Plenty of good news! SNP voted together with hard brexiteer tories! Britain mostly united on a decision! Sure, it's doesn't lead to a clear next step, but that's perhaps what's most exciting - most remainers voted against the deal because this is the best chance we have for this whole farce to not happen!