The UK represents about 4% of the world's economy. From a purely selfish point of view, it hurts the rest of the world if the British economy collapses. Anything that keeps the UK in the EU should be done. The British need to be saved from economic suicide, so a second referendum allows this fate to be resolved. If they get right-wing domestic terrorism due to this, they'll just have to deal with it like the rest of the world does.
2
The article provides a historical perspective about how undemocratic and messy referendum can be but it does not provide any reasonable alternative. Since the British parliament is incapable of agreeing on any option and party leaders keep repeating that we need to execute on the will of the British people. Well, that will was 2 years ago and reasonable people change their mind in the face of reality. A referendum is the only way to get the current will of the people and get us out of a catastrophic outcome of a no deal Brexit.
2
While I think much of this article is accurate, it misses the point. The decision to leave the EU is surely the most important and far-reaching decision the UK has made since it joined the EU 46 years ago. A couple of things to consider:
1. Brexit will have huge consequences for the country and many of its inhabitants. Should such a decision even be made on a simple majority basis? The 52% is hardly a mandate and it fails to consider the now widely understood inaccuracies in the pro-Brexit position.
2. A meaningful referendum now that the contours of Brexit are fairly clear makes now a better time to take such a vote. There is plenty of time. The facts have been circulating for some time, so little preparation is needed.
3. The May proposal or hard Brexit is a red herring. That is what you elect your MP to decide. Let him/her do the job if it comes back in favor. If it is reversed, stop imposing the will of a large minority on the majority.
4. March 29th is not necessarily a drop dead date. The UK can withdraw its request without a vote or much work. Its leaders just have to have the courage to do so.
Chasing a warped nostalgic and inaccurate view of history makes no sense for the UK. If the people really believe with a 60% to 40% approval then move forward like in the Irish example. Otherwise, remember you have to explain it to your kids.
4
A Second Referendum can only be used to clarify what the public meant by voting to Leave in the first place.
It cannot serve as a redo; that would open up the possibility of a third, a fourth...you get the idea,
In light of this the only meaningful question on a potential second referendum can be:
How do you want UK to exit the EU on March 29th?
Option 1: Theresa May's deal
Option 2: No deal Brexit
Arguments for a second referendum on the grounds that
1. the demographic has changed since the first referendum; 2. that the first referendum wasn't representative enough; or,
3. that outside interference influenced the result, are all irrelevant because Remainers would have rejected those grounds for a redo if they had won in 2016.
But none of this matters because we've run out of time. Even if Parliament blocks Brexit without Cabinet backing at the British end (unlikely and open to legal challenge since it violates all existing parliamentary practice), Michel Barnier clarified today that this would still result in no deal Brexit at the EU end unless Parliament simultaneously votes in an acceptable alternative to No Deal.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-barnier-idUSKCN1PH1OQ
1
"Crucially, the Irish referendum, which was approved by 66 percent of the voters, merely removed a limit on lawmakers’ authority, freeing them up to act as they wished."
The Irish referendum on abortion was, MUCH MORE CRUCIALLY in the opinion of most commentators, preceded by a Citizens' Assembly in which non-parliamentarians, randomly but proportionally selected from the population at large and chaired by Justice Mary Laffoy, were invited to discover their collective feelings about issues related to abortion. Their end-product was a presentation to the Dublin Parliament recommending both a referendum and the form of its questions. The outcome was legislation that conformed to public opinion; and decades of acrimony and resentment were substantially healed. Rationality and conversation informed by experts called by the Assembly was given a chance to show that even the most bigoted and rancid controversies can be healed.
Here is a link to an article written by members of that Citizens' Assembly:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/22/irish-readers-citizens-assembly-worked-brexit
3
For those who believe that a second referendum would put a stop to Brexit, be careful what you wish for. A second referendum could result in an even more resounding endorsement of separation from the rest of the world. As an American who lived in the UK for 8 years, Brexit was a disappointment but not a surprise. It is an expression of deeply felt xenophobia and isolationism which, sadly, is all too common there. People complaining about "sovereignty" remind me of the Southern segregationists complaining about "States' rights" in our own Civil Rights era.
1
We all like democracy, until we don't. Democracy works, until it doesn't. The problems, as I see it, is that there are too many ill-informed people that vote. You don't have to have a clue to vote. Sadly, that holds true in the US as well. Example: Many in CA vote on new laws or policies without any knowledge, and no idea how to pay for the new law or policy once the public votes to implement what 'sounds good on paper.' This doesn't just happen in CA, but CA is between 1-3 trillion in debt, depending on who you ask. Much of that is tied to new legislation passed by voters that isn't budgeted AND the public unions with astounding benefits for life. I believe that when governments propose a law, they should also know and tell voters what the cost to all will be. Brexit was a vote of emotion and frustration; no details on impact or cost. Easy to vote with your emotions when you didn't know you would have skin in the game. So to speak.
1
Whether a second referendum helps to heal divisions or perpetuates them will depend on how that referendum is arrived at and conducted. Gordon Brown's proposals outlined in an article The Guardian merit much more consideration than most of the British political elite seems prepared to give to any sensible way out of the current impasse over Brexit.
A citizens’ assembly is now the only way to break the Brexit deadlock
Gordon Brown at https://bit.ly/2FVtPOL
1
May (like Cameron) has always operated with the sole intent of keeping her party together. That has always been her real "red line". Any move towards any other option would start a civil war among the Conservatives. That being said, the Labour Party is equally fragile, given Corbyn's intransigence and single-minded focus on pushing for a General Election.
But this could be good news, although not solely. The UK political system is broken and the high level of public frustration could well lead to a resurgent political center, although it will doubtless also lead to a resurgence of extremes, fueled by whatever parts of te spectrum feel bitterness about whatever final result emerges.
1
I'm afraid this is a very one-sided report on the state of academic thinking on referendums. There are many who think referendums can be beneficial - and there are a lot of special journal issues and books on precisely that. For a recent popular take on the possibility of designing the referendum to be a more careful exercise in deliberation (and not just majoritarian democracy) see: https://theconversation.com/populisms-problems-can-be-fixed-by-getting-the-public-better-informed-and-thats-actually-possible-109720
It's easy to see why something has downsides. But you have to be precise about what that 'something' is. Referendums come in many shapes. A well-designed referendum can differ very much from a poorly designed one. There are many different species of democracy and many different species of referendums.
4
I assume Cameron has a safe cocoon to inhabit. He has to be the worst PM in history with his histrionics: Scotland vote for independence and BREXIT.
4
@Geraldine Conrad
He has a lovely £25,000 "shepherd's hut" installed in his garden in which he intends to write his memoirs.
http://www.redskyshepherdshuts.co.uk/blog/2017/4/24/david-cameron-and-red-sky-linked-by-charming-twist-of-fate
1
At the time of the first referendum, there was a great deal of misinformation, exaggerated statements about the benefit of Brexit and probably Russian interference. I think that in a new referendum, where the false information was called out, Brexit would fail by a wide margin and the Pro-Brexit side would have little support.
I don't find the very idea of a referendum to be a problem necessary. But I can't possibly comprehend the logic behind allowing something of this magnitude to be decided by a SIMPLE MAJORITY vote. Even during the months before the referendum, before its outcome and the disastrous results were known, I remember thinking - come on, leaving EU would be a seismic event for the country... of all the things that the country may decide to go through, this would be the one to require no less than the 66% of the popular vote!
4
I agree that, in a potential 2nd referendum, a 3-option vote can lead to a plurality result that doesn't accurately represent whether a majority wishes to stay in or leave the EU.
My suggestion is to place two individual questions on a new referendum:
1. Remain or Leave?
2. If Leave were to prevail in Question 1, do you prefer Theresa May's negotiated deal or no deal?
Regarding question 2, it seems that the reviled deal that the PM has worked out would be the best soft Brexit that the UK will ever manage, no matter how long they dicker with Brussels. Hence, "No Deal" (hard Brexit) is really the only alternate option.
Structure the 2nd referendum this way, ask for an Article 50 time extension, and get the vote done as soon as logistically possible.
1
So, the citizens don't vote the way the elites want and so... the elites call for a second vote! Amazing. Gee, I wonder if voters had originally voted to remain there would be a call for a second vote? You already had a vote; the issues were debated endlessly, and the voters voted to exit. So deal with it. Frankly, the threats and aggressive action by the EU demonstrate that the voters got it right the first time. Stand firm, Brits.
4
@R.P.
It is not the "elites" calling for a second vote.
A whole lot of ordinary people (750,000 in fact )marched in London in October calling for a People's Vote.
3
Brexit is the real elite project, that will only benefit the disaster capitalists backing it. Many of them see Brexit as an opportunity for a regulatory bonfire so they can cash in. Johnson, Farage, Rees-Mogg etc - all privately educated and well off. Brexit is as anti-elite as the Republicans and Trump.
6
Let them vote again. We want them back. The EU is showing growing signs of instability and its Brussels based bureaucracy, not being an elected government, is incompetent and unable to act. The first referendum, the one that created Brexit, paved the way to populism in the Continent. A second one, called to reject Brexit, could help in bringing back some common sense all over Europe.
2
Calling the first referendum was a dumb move, calling a second is an inevitable consequence. The alternative is leaving with no deal, because each side has incompatible red lines and that isn't going to change. Leaving with no deal wasn't what people voted for, and the evidence for that is simple and undeniable - it wasn't what the leave campaign promised. they promised a deal that is not possible. Now reality has overtaken those lies it makes no sense to block a second referendum. The only people afraid of a second vote are those who know they'd lose it.
4
How about this as the question on the second referendum? If parliament fails to approve a Brexit deal, should Britain leave or remain in the EU? Those who wish to leave with or without a deal will vote leave, those who wish to remain with or without a deal will vote remain, and those who will leave only with a deal will vote remain. Then Parliament will have the guidance it needs to deal with the matter.
Revocation is still the best overall option especially to gain time for negotiation. The ambiguity of the 2016 referendum's slight majority reinforces this conclusion and lends support to the imposition of a supermajority requirement for future referendums on major issues.
1
Oh dear! Elections are "are messy, dangerous and not nearly as democratic as they seem." They are "volatile, turning on unrelated political swings — or even the weather." Elections that produce "an overwhelming majority," like the 1936, 1964, or 1972 US presidential elections "can be more reliable. Wide margins leave little space for outside factors to swing the outcome. And they create a perception of consensus, however artificial, that helps all sides accept the results." Was I reading a Swiftian proposal about democracy? An 18th century republican rant against Athenian democracy? Maybe a crypto-attack on the California proposition system? Or what?
Solution to the problem of Brexit vote? Easy: Instant Runoff Voting with three choices (no Brexit, soft Brexit, hard Brexit). Voters put a first preference and a second preference. If none of the three wins over 50% on the first go, you drop the lowest of the three and add in the second choice of those who voted for the dropped choice. If people are educated to understand what they’ve done, then they will be content, as we often are, with their second choice. That’s how elections should be done anyway in multi-party societies, as more and more countries and states are coming to realize.
3
The pitfalls ascribed to various new referendum questions may be a result of the article authors missing a possibly simpler referendum which has two questions:
(1) Should we Leave or Remain?
AND regardless of your vote on (1) give your choice on (2)
(2) If Leave wins, should we have a No Deal (Hard) Brexit or the soft Brexit that the EU has agreed to?
The merit of this wording is that it cannot end up split 30-30-40, and it would bind the government to a particular result.
Regardless of that merit, the Leave legislators would likely resist this referendum, as especially the Hard Brexit folks would view this as a lose-lose scenario. However the Soft Brexit and Remain legislators could be sufficient to approve such a referendum. An especially strong motivation --- maintaining a strong Europe to counter Putin --- has been emphasized in other comments.
1
Fisher and Taub are not to be viewed as objective observers, but as partisans for Remain. One sign of this is their bald statement that "Analysts believe that a no-deal Brexit would most likely crater the British economy, causing significant suffering, particularly among the poor, whose social services have already been shredded. There could also be food and drug shortages."
Some analysts are in fact saying this, but others are not. Read, for example, the Economics Editor of the Guardian, Larry Elliot, here. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/17/rupture-eu-brexit-reform.
1
You can't be sure that a second referendum will be so bad for the country just by talking about it. You won't know until you try it out. What we do know is that there are a lot of people who think it's a good idea.
1
The first Brexit vote was influenced by Russians and the liars who took their money, or used the confusion opportunistically, in a preview of Trump's ill-gotten 'win' later that year. That more than warrants a do-over, now that we know better.
3
Why vote a second time? The simple answer is that the first vote was driven by misinformation and distortion leavened by some degree of Russian subterfuge. Little thought was spent on exactly how breaking off from the EU was actually going to happen, or what unforeseen consequences might follow. It's interesting that younger Britons are heavily in favor of remaining while older subjects seem to favor leaving. Could it be that nostalgia for a vanished imperial past has infected the elderly? Or that understanding the international nature of both economics and politics is such that we simply have to work toward solidarity with our neighbors rather than isolation. As an American I can only watch my British relatives wound their polity needlessly with false hopes of "independence." We live in a complex "works-with" world and there's no going back to so called self-reliance. So here's to a second referendum. Let's hope the Brits wake up and make the best choice for the long term future.
4
The arguments proposed for not having a second referendum are nonsensical.
If a referendum is not democratic, then ANY voting process may be considered anti-democratic as well.
An imperfect vote or referendum is more democratic than no vote at all.
4
The one aspect missing from this Brexit article is the fact that Putin was a the center of the fissure from the start. Its his goal to break up the EU - and now the Brits are falling over themselves to make it happen. The EU should be standing together against a tyrant seeking hegemony by instigating chaos and division. Breaking off from Europe at this point in time borders on the suicidal.
48
It’s just not that simple, although yes the Leave campaign has been found guilty of improper use of funds. Brexit is a growth of ENGLISH Nationalism, it has to be as simply Scotland and Northern Ireland voted Remain 62%, and 55% respectively. Which is absolutely fine as long as the autonomy and self determination that Brexit voters hold so dear.... is not imposed unwillingly on the electorate of Scotland and NI. To suggest as a Nation Brits... which in itself is a derogatory term to someone who sees themselves as Scottish or Irish first, European second and never “British”, are flocking to become pals with Putin and are unaware of his underhand methods in simply incorrect.
4
ehhhh- Am an American and I do not think that Brexit makes a whole lot of sense. Furthermore, it is clear that there is no majority in parliament right now for any particular deal. Then there is the ROI / Northern Ireland Border issue- and a bomb went off in Derry the other day.
having said that- there are going to be millions of unhappy Englishmen if Brexit does not happen. People talk about this situation possibly breaking up the UK, as in Scotland opting for Independence. It is not impossible that England itself could be, in effect, geographically split. There is a very strong North/South divide in England, in general and over this issue in specific.
Meanwhile, the DUP had better wake up and smell the coffee. The Tories could throw them under the bus. After all, from a certain perspective NI is just a nuisance and the DUP/Orangemen are just recalcitrant, unyielding problems.
What a mess. Worsee than here, maybe.
A perfect solution: Let's have a second referendum to determine if we should have another referendum on BREXIT. If the vote is 'yes', we can proceed to a third referendum on BREXIT. If the vote is 'no', then we will not have a third referendum and we will then continue to muddle through this nonsense.
What do you mean by "democratic"? You Irish scholar may not like some of the recent referendums in Ireland, but that likely reflects his politics. Trump thinks democracy is whatever supports him. Are the rest of us so different?
How about 2 out of 3? Schedule a second referendum this year. If Remain wins, then wait one more year and hold a final, third referendum in 2020. Which ever side wins 2 out of 3, that's it.
Your sentence "52 percent of British voters, 17.4 million people, chose to leave the bloc" is misleading.
It would be more correct to say that 52 percent of THOSE WHO VOTED in June 2016 chose to leave the bloc. There are nearly 47 million voters in the UK, more if 16- and 17-year-olds were allowed to vote, as in the Scottish referendum, and even more if EU residents in the UK were also allowed to vote on this issue.
So, a significant minority of UK voters has decided a suicidal future for Britain, based on lies and misinformation. A second referendum, based on the knowledge gathered in the past 2-1/2 years, is the only way forward.
12
Of course that means an even smaller percentage of the population voted remain. Everybody knew what they were being asked. I think Brexit is a mess but the type of argument you put forward is simply nonsensical when people are free to vote or not. Those that choose not to vote made their decision to not be included - that’s up to them.
6
The simple fact is that a majority would now almost certainly vote against Brexit. In Ireland a second vote on an EU treaty passed in two different cases. The people who supported Brexit want to push it through whether or not they have popular support. Of course, the elected representatives could eventually be unseated but that will be too late.
27
@kate That is not a "fact" simple or otherwise. A review of survey data taken only in the last few months does not show an anti-Brexit majority. Far from it. What they also show is that the vast majority of Britons are only 'moderately' for or against it. A small minority - around 15% - actually believe that Brexit will profoundly damage the British economy meaning 85% of the public think the dire prognostications are over-inflated. The 85% are 100% wrong. The "simple fact" is that the British electorate is largely composed of cynical semi-literates who hate their elected officials and stupidly believe they are all being lied to and that nothing really bad is going to happen regardless of outcome.
6
Imagine, if you can, that you are a politician, at any level, and you are a candidate in an election. Imagine further that you lose that election to a candidate who had broken electoral laws, who had made false accusations about your own policies and who had made totally unrealistic and unachievable promises. Would you accept the result of that vote as "the will of the people"? Or would you challenge that vote with every fiber of your being?
Now you can understand why a second referendum is the ONLY fair and acceptable way forward.
61
@Andrew Norris With no sarcasm intended, the scenario you describe sounds awfully like many of the recent presidential elections held here in the US. I think I could go further and say most elections and not even limit the statement to the US. And, I'm afraid that this is nothing new.
6
@Andrew Norris
And what would be unfair about Parliament making the decision, as they are indeed elected to do on behalf of the people?
3
@Andrew Norris That's one of the downsides of democracy. The electorate has only itself to blame. Most Brexit voters went to the polls thinking it would resuscitate their Empire and keep the Poles and other Eastern Europeans on the other side of the Channel. The remainder just wanted to 'sock it to the Establishment." In other words either bigotry, stupidity or both. Some nations choose to fail in free and fair elections.
11
The argument for a second referendum on Brexit is valid now that the Brits have a better idea of just what it means. They may well still vote for it but, at least, they will know what they are approving. The first time around, they were told only untruths.
33
I am particularly for a second referendum, now that everyone knows the real impact and methodology, and this time they should allow ALL British people vote, including - and especially - those living overseas who were prohibited from voting (the vast majority). The ex-pats are equally impacted by the decisions back home, and Britain has shown itself to be the only western nation to prohibit its citizens from voting on national impactful events, and yet it says it is a full "democracy".
I quite disagree with this column. Yes, the first referendum was undemocratic and a mistake, epitomizing all the problems the column identifies with referendums. The only way to correct it is a second referendum, as Parliament itself will not overrule the first referendum.
In the first referendum, voters opting for Brexit were choosing a "pig in a poke," with no concrete idea (or a grievously mistaken idea) of what Brexit terms would be. Now we know what they are, and voters can choose between three options: No deal Brexit, May's plan, or Remain. I have not doubt that given how appalling the first two options are, Remain would win handily. There is no way to correct the complete mess created by the first referendum texcept to have a second one.
1
I hate to be the one to point out the obvious, but...
There's no time for a second vote.
Rescinding Brexit would be seen as totally anti-democratic and would end many political careers.
Corbin is not going to swoop down (in tights, with a cape) to rescue the nation.
A hard Brexit is unavoidable. Sorry.
And...
Everything will be alright. Check back in a year, no one will even care, anymore.
8
There is a demonstrated majority against a no-deal brexit. If the mps do not support May’s plan or a customs union there will either be a referendum or no brexit. The EU will happily extend the deadline. Which is the most probable next action.
6
@laurence
Unfortunately not much about brexit is obvious or inevitable.
For instance, the EU has indicated that it might be willing to extend the Art 50 period for a referendum or general election.
"Everything will be alright. Check back in a year, no one will even care, anymore."
This is exactly the big lie that told by the leave campaign from the very beginning. That the UK could leave the EU and everything would go on pretty much the same way it always has.
The truth is that any form of brexit is damaging to the economy, the question is how much damage will be done. The least amount of damage would be where the UK stays in the Single Market and Customs Union (the "Norway plus" proposal). The most damaging, and truly catastrophic brexit is no deal.
Just google what preparations the government is making for food and medicine shortages, and the possibility of civil unrest(!) among other things.
Brexit is nothing less than a monumental act of self-harm. I am ready to seize on any way out of this mess, including a referendum.
12
@laurence
You are probably right, except in your final two sentences.
Barnier (the EU's negotiator) seems to be saying today that UK Parliament has to agree on a positive outcome, not that it is up to him entirely.
Nonsense. A referendum vote that reverses an undoable, destructive policy is likely to make things worse?!
3
What has not been mentioned is an increasing sense of people's apathy to Brexit. Even the entertainment value of watching our politicians squirm is getting stale.
A second vote would only be run on emotion and frustration, rather like the first one, only worse. It would solve nothing. People's long term frustration is really with the Westminster Government, not the EU.
Most UK voters had little real knowledge of the EU before 2016. Even now, many still have little real understating of the EU. I admit I only stated to take a deeper interest in the EU after the vote.
It is always refreshing to read the sensible reasoned Brexit commentary in the NYT.
2
Referendums are critical when government chooses to ignore and turn a blind eye to the wishes of the people. In the UK there was a growing discontent with the EU right from the start. The people never voted what is now the EU. They voted some 40 years ago to join a trading block of 8/9 nations. They did not vote to join the Brussels political "Project" of a European sovereign state. Over time both John Major and Tony Blair ignored the concerns about the "ever closer union" where sovereignty was handed to an unelected, unaccountable, self serving bureaucrats who increasingly sought to influence and control the lives of this United States of Europe. Countries who did vote on treaties or the ill fated constitution and voted NO, were told to go back and vote again until they got it right. Much can be said about the Brexit referendum and both sides presented extreme and somewhat misleading argument. Project Fear on the part of remain and a massaging of stats by the leavers. In the end, people voted out in the biggest democratic exercise in UK history and are angry at the refusal of the "establishment" to honor it. A second vote can only have questions about whether Mrs May is a good plan or do people want a clean break. Any remain option will anger people who voted out and be seen a a betrayal of the electorate. Also it should be noted that in the last general election just two years ago both parties, accounting for 80% of the vote, were committed to leave.
2
At this time a referendum is, to co-opt a famous Churchill quote, “the worst form of government.....except every other”. All of its flaws are evident and yet any other course is worse. A people’s vote is absolutely necessary because it will lead to a debate based on genuine information that can no longer be entirely obscured by demagoguery.
1
Theresa May is playing a very dangerous game: to reject every solution advanced by the Torys and the Labour. Proposing nothing; plan B = plan A. It's her way or the highway. At the same time she's saying: Europe, com'on, you cannot let me down, right? The Parliament under the direction by the Torys is clearly in the mood of rejecting everything May proposes but keeping her at the helm; what for? To keep the 'power', the 'leadership'. Like the captain at the top of his sinking boat.
4
One of the main problems of a referendum is that people is the lack of nuance. All the little details must be filled in by the politicians.
The Brexiteers have shown themselves completely incompetent. Not only turned many of their arguments for a Brexit out to be mendacious but they also showed a complete lack of commitment after the referendum to make the Brexit a success.
Add to this Theresa May's misguided policy of Russian roulette that offers people the choice between doing what she wants and a No Deal.
The British people gave its politicians a mandate to organize a Brexit. They made a mess of it. The British people should now have the right to tell them that they no longer trust them to be able to bring a Brexit to a good end and that they rather would maintain the status quo.
3
I remember a few years back reading an analysis in the Times --- I think it was about one of the many messes in the Middle East --- and was so impressed that I actually went back to look at the byline (something I still quite haven't made a habit of).
It was written by Max Fisher. He's a treasure for the Times and should be given an op-ed slot in addition to his "Interpreter" series. Letting him really swing for the fences would be a delight to read.
Don't you just hate it when you ask voters their opinion and they give you the wrong answer. Good luck UK with muddling through to an end. Though the end may only be a resting point in what promises to be change as a recurring theme. Your country has evolved greatly and endured so many challenges over the last 300 years so I know it will carry on and still be a great country. I believe that no matter the outcome the United States and it's people will remain a supporting country.
I voted to leave the EU, as I was and still am sick of being dictated to by EU leaders in Brussel, the majority of people I know still feel that way. The problem with parliament is that the majority of MPs want to stay in the EU and are not interested in carrying out what the majority of the public want, so they will disagree with whatever withdrawal agreement is reached, the EU will drag it out as they really on our money and most EU leaders are corrupt and use a lot of the money for their own expenses. I have no confidence in any of the political parties in the UK, and I would never vote for any of them. To say have another referendum just makes me angry, it's like saying let's keep voting till we get what the majority of MPs want, to stay in the EU, they care nothing about the people of this country, we need a completely new party with a strong leader who will carry out the wishes of the majority of people in this country and actually care. 1 in 5 people in this country live below the poverty line, homelessness is increasing and all the government does is obsess and disagree on bloody brexit! They should look at what's happening and how people are struggling in the UK and start caring.
I’m very curious in what exact ways do you feel the controls from Brussels? I don’t get the narrow sight aspects of people voting for brexit, as a foreigner its impossible to fathom the intention.
How can collectivness and common interest not be the way of the future. EU has been the greatest peace maker of all time and leaving eu is most probably the biggest generator of what causes war, misconceptions and frustration in the future. Voting on Brexit is exactly the vote for a similar delusion of nostalgia the Trump supports are voting for when they believe America can be “great again”. When in fact they didn’t loose their jobs to immigrants or China, they lost them to technology - machines, and the main issue seem more likely to be relating the lack of education and government support.
The real question remains, What will happen when we have to deal with real issues like climate change, how will divided nations address issues of global scale? when people seems more occupied with themselves and solving their own problem... Well maybe that is an answer too, but not a world I would be proud to live in.. good night..
2
Why does no one address the fact that most of the pro Brexit argument was propaganda?
The people voted "for" something that can never happen and were denied the truth about what will happen to their detriment if it did pass.
Free Speech is not a suicide pact.
A vote based on propaganda is a vote stolen, not a vote given.
5
What is amazing is all this talk about "deals " ,divorce (this is not a divorce ) , backstop ,etc... but there is absolutely no design on paper and in numbers of what would or will happen or what are the stakes or conditions of negociations. "Semi Brexit " . "Humble request " to the Queen to escape Brexit ,all tricks are alluded to but no real numbers . No causality.
It's a clear way out of a monumental mistake.
1
Here in California propositions have become toxic. Frequently they're put on the ballot by big money supporters who hope to buy enough votes to win. Many are badly written, and almost all the advertising on either side is misleading. They should be at least very restricted, and at best banned.
2
Ask a Californian about a referendum. Howard Jarvis didn't like property taxes, ginned up a 'popular' referendum on the issue, and California schools have never been the same since. Referenda should deal with questions like who should play the next James Bond or should Meghan Markle be addressed as 'princess'. Not is it a good idea today to leave the EU.
2
Still complaining about something from 40 years ago? If the majority of California voters were that upset about it, they would have had another referendum on it during the intervening 40 years. They seem to have 3 or 4 every year.
''Two and a half years ago, 52 percent of British voters, 17.4 million people, chose to leave the bloc''
It was 52% of those who voted chose to leave the EU, which is approx 37% of electorate - a minority. This combined with Russian interference/manipulation, and majorities in Northern Ireland and Scotland to stay in the bloc, leaves the initial referendum process completely flawed.
4
In all the confusion surrounding Brexit, I am looking at the Italian constitution of 1946-47, and its various articles. That constitution specifically states that referenda can only be held to abolish some existing law, i.e. they are not propositions such as California has. Secondly, referenda cannot be held on matters of foreign policy, or financial/fiscal matters. Thirdly, the referendum is valid only if the participation is at least a majority of the electorate. Thus, the Italian constitution puts some limits on referenda, to avoid irresponsible voting on whatever idea a populist may come up with. I am not saying that it works perfectly, nothing ever does, but it provides some kind of filter
7
There are three reasons why a new referendum would in fact be more democratic, and express a more realistic view of Brexit. First, people now know that Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage were deliberately stoking pro-Brexit sentiment via anti-immigrant and other fear-mongering. Second, many people are also now aware of Russia's role via social media in stoking pro-Brexit sentiment. Third, people have now had two years to watch and see and learn just how difficult, damaging and even dangerous Brexit is likely to be, in so many ways, not least economically. Thus, while I would normally agree with the writers' assessment that referenda are not always as democratic as they might be, I believe this is a different situation.
5
The first referendum was non-binding. The Brexit process only started after Parliament approved with Crown signature initiating the Article 50 process. Another referendum would still require Parliament’s action to undo its prior action. EU cannot do anything while original Parliament action is in force. Since any change requires approval by Parliament regardless of the referendum, why would the UK not have Parliament fulfill its role by approving the plan, cancelling the Article 50 or let the withdrawal occur. The only vote should be for a new Parliament after the end of March, with voters informed by what happened.
4
@Michael Blazin
All perfectly logical. Too bad those who were selling the pro Brexit propaganda don't want to be rational. they want what they want or they will insist on a no deal Brexit.
When you gaslight a whole nation into shooting itself in both feet why would they start being sensible now?
3
Th. May has delivered a Brexit Deal. If there should be a referendum because the Commons are blocked, then it should be on this deal, because it delivers a promise made to the people.
A first referendum should ask: do you agree to leave the EU according to the plan proposed by the governement.
If, and only if, the answer is negative should a second referendum ask anew the question of 2016. This would be truly democratic, a way to follow up on a promise while still giving a choice.
1
A second referendum has dangers.
How safe is the alternative?
3
Opinion seems to suggest that voting is the only tool for navigating this situation. But leadership is another; decisiveness that produces clarity and leads to action. Plan B or no-deal, that's it. Vote, and get on with.
Certainly "hurry up and do something" has its risks. But so does further indulging this paralysis.
It sounds like opinion is split, and the split is entrenched. A second referendum or moving the departure date back would be more rudderless drifting in ill-wind.
3
(Put that choice to Parliament and have a final MP vote, not a public vote, that is.)
1
Thank you for this article and all the very erudite comments which have convinced me that we must have a second referendum. Two and a half years ago we knew only theoretically about the possible consequences of a particular decision. We know much more now. Maybe the do over will still be out but we have to have the chance to run this exercise again and if possible include the other option of the so called ‘deal’. About 25% of the population appear to be hard core haters of the EU. They will never change. But the rest must be given the chance to think this through. Personally I hope we remain but if we do we must become much more active participants of the EU and fight vigorously for it’s necessary reform.
9
Wouldn't the answer be to have a referendum, but require a 60% majority to overturn the previous vote? According to the article, there's only a "slight" majority in favor of remaining. IMHO, there should have been a 60% majority necessary to approve Brexit, to weed out the "protest votes" who really didn't want to leave, but didn't want to vote Remain. I'm no expert, but isn't the key here that they already see that the promised benefits of Brexit were lies? Shouldn't that be enough to vote again?
6
I have no particular quarrel with the opinions expressed in this article, other than the implicit assumption that calling for a referendum in the near future is something the UK could do unilaterally. Even the simplest referendum vote would take much more than two months, which is all the time left before the UK is out of the EU and any referendum becomes moot. A proper referendum effort, where different factions have time to present their views, would likely take until way past July. Because of new EU Parliament elections, the EU has made it crystal clear that no extension would be possible past June or perhaps July. Even that would require unanimous ratification of the extension by ALL 27 remaining members.
Those who advocate a second referendum need to explain how to provide enough time to hold one. As far as I understand, the only action that could accomplish that would be for Parliament to vote to rescind Brexit before March 29. Last fall, the EU courts issued an interpretation of Article 50 allowing the invoking country to unilaterally rescind its invocation of Article 50 as long as it did so before the deadline.
I'm no lawyer, but I see nothing in that ruling that would prevent the UK government from rescinding the current invocation and then immediately invoking it a second time, giving the UK another two years to make up its mind.
2
A second referendum would allow voters to decide whether they want to remain in, or leave the EU.
The idea is that if Parliament is deadlocked, the people must be asked again.
Hardline Brexiters are prepared to leave without a deal. Little have they thought about the likely consequences.
If a frictionless border with the EU in the Republic of Ireland is not settled, this could potentially result in the breakup of the UK, with Northern Ireland choosing in a referendum to join Ireland.
Such a referendum would be allowed under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which ended the civil war and included a promise from the UK, Ireland, and the EU to maintain the status quo across Ireland.
The 1998 deal leaves open the possibility of a reunified Ireland, if majorities in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland support it by referendum.
Northern Ireland, which voted 55.8% to remain in 2016, could then choose whether to remain in the UK or to unify with Ireland, a EU member.
In 2014 a referendum on Scottish independence was held, which was rejected by 55%. In 2016 a big majority of Scots - 62% - voted to remain in the EU. They have been talking about a second independence referendum since the Brexit vote.
Given these scenarios English nationalists might end up with a “Little” Britain after all.
7
Great article. A similar article might have been written following the opening of Pandora's Box.
5
In the face of so much confusion of how to proceed, a simple solution would be to cancel withdrawal from the EU. That would preserve the status quo economically while giving time for developing policies without an arbitrary deadline. Thereafter the UK could restart the process with a better understanding of what the EU will accept and the consequences for the UK.
7
An excellent piece that I'm going to save for the next time someone inevitably tries to argue that it's a good idea to govern by referenda (it's not - that's your government abdicating its duty).
We got very, very lucky in Canada.
Back when Chretien was Prime Minister, we had to endure something like referendum #3 re: Quebec separation (Quebec's separatist government allowed Quebeckers [not all Canadians] to vote on a faulty Brexit-like question again [because every time they failed in the past, they would just hold another vote]) and actually came within 1/10 of 1 percent of losing the country.
But that was the last time.
Finally, the government put some court-approved restrictions in place.
No more Brexit-like fantasy questions, like, 'do you want to separate from Canada, but keep all the benefits of being Canadian?'. No more '50% is good enough to go', etc. - no more holding Canada hostage for decades.
Yes, as a federation, regions of Canada ARE free to separate, if that's what they want - but from now on, it can only be on the basis of a fair question and with something more than simple-majority support.
We've never had a separation referendum since then, and that's because appropriate rules mean that nobody can pull fantasy-based Brexit-like nonsense here anymore.
8
The authors draw exactly the wrong conclusion. When confronted with a noisy measure of some natural quantity, the best way to be sure you know the actual measure is to make repeated measurements; the noise is averaged out and the true reading persists. If, as the authors argue, referendums are a noisy and easily skewed measure, repeated referendums (along the lines of "this is what we thought you were asking for, is this correct?") are necessary and appropriate. Add to that the fact that this referendum was by nature vague and nonspecific regarding terms — no one would argue that voters were demanding a withdrawal under any terms whatever, up to and including the immediate destruction of the state — and the case for a second referendum is clear. Continuing under the gospel-like acceptance of an admittedly poor measure of the public will is frankly criminal. If I so much as discard a piece of junk email on my computer, I get asked "Are you sure?". A conservative approach mindful of the dangers of rash actions surely would demand clarity and certainty for such a drastic decision.
4
The winner is chaos, strong men, dictators, Putin, and Trump of course.
4
Britain is dead. Long live Britannia.
Brexit will occur. Scotland will secede. Northern Ireland will probably disintegrate after some renewed violence along the border (or eventual realize it must secede and join the EU with Scotland), and England will become a minor European country along the lines of Denmark; it's imperial nostalgia all that remains of a great power.
10
@dguet
Quite likely, if (as seems likely) everything ends with a hard Brexit. Having said that, England is ten times bigger than Denmark, and far more unequal.
Denmark is also remarkably stable and sure of its identity. In contrast, England itself is just as divided as Britain, and the political divide between Corbynites and Tories is not going away, nor that between Remainers in prosperous cities and Leavers who feel left-behind or left-out of increasingly-multicultural and increasingly-multiracial England.
Britain could easily split into half-a-dozen political entities and they would still be riven with divisions. Britain's identity crisis goes very deep, fueled by nostalgia and resentment.
1
The political intellectual developments of Anglo saxons , that they be British or Americans are so shallow and without sense of causality .How can philosophies that are stuck in the ideology of the Self be able to think or represent the idea of collective elaboration ? Referendums are not democracy but our republics are not democracies ( US constitution or British parliamentary monarchial Empire with no constitution ) they claim. Democracy is a process not a definite state. And refusing a second referendum in the name of democracy to implement the first one as law is ridiculous. Please read Montesquieu.
3
Sorry, you can redefine words as you like, but a referendum is in fact the very definition of "democratic". It would be refreshing if the authors could just say what they mean: the indicated problems with votes — "turning on unrelated political swings … or even the weather" — are not problems peculiar to referendums; they are problems endemic to democracy itself. To quote the old saw, democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all those other forms that have been tried.
5
@Boltarus No . Referendums are not democratic .And certainly not the definition of democracy . Direct democracy of populism has been the manure field of fascisms . Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet ,etc...
1
I don’t think any of the folks you named engaged in referenda to come to power or remain in power.
@Stephen
Read how Hitler, Mussolini and Franco came to power : referendums .
2
Best option: A second vote with the three obvious options (May's, No deal, Stay) followed by a third vote with the two most popular options.
A second referendum will have as much relevance to what the government should do as the first referendum had, which is to say none at all. The issues surrounding the UK's exit form the EU, the costs and benefits of staying or leaving and how to tally them all up for a final decision, are more complicated and involved than the average, or even above-average, person can fully appreciate. Members of Parliament are elected to office to consider these issue and make these decision. They should do their jobs and vote to leave or remain based on the two years of fact-gathering and consideration that they have been engaged in. Anything short of this will be a dereliction of their duty.
7
Thank you Max and Amanda for a concise, informative article which by the circumstances surrounding Brexit must be difficult to compile. My country Scotland voted 62% REMAIN, but in this post comparing my clinical Professional life and Brexit, I hope to make a compelling reason for a Second vote. Here goes.... imagine you are a patient and you attend your GP or Primary Care professional. He decides in consultation that you need surgery and after giving some details of expectations of treatment you are referred to Hospital.... that would be medico-legal Implied Consent from you or a voter in Brexit First Referendum. You are aware of some benefits, some pitfalls and await your Hospital visit. At the Hospital visit the Consultant describes in more depth the pros and cons, including those specific to your personal condition. He feels leaving the status quo is a legitimate clinical choice given potentially damaging side effects. This would be in medico-legal terms Informed Consent, or a Second Referendum once more facts are known. Which patient would YOU rather be Informed or Implied, which UK voter has the fuller image of Brexit and it’s complexities?
6
In the book "True Freedom - The Road to the First Real Democracy" it would take a real majority of voters, like 66.6% to make any changes in their government systems. Also, the options to be presented to the taxpayers are not make be political leaders but experts on the particular fields. Finally, this type of change would require presentations for a year before the votes would be cast. Think about this approach Ms. May.
3
I have always liked a 2/3 threshold. For every pair of opposing views, you have an individual tie-breaker. Majority rules at the smallest scale possible. An alternative is to require not a simple majority overall, but rather a simple majority within every societally, or at least politically, meaningful subgroup: >50% among both women and men, among all age groups, among all geographic areas (England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland) and any other needed population partition. If you satisfy the majority requirement across all groups, then you can argue that you have a popular mandate. And if you don't, you have the start of an understanding of your political problem. Finally, if you are tied across the board, then you need to ask some different questions.
2
@RMH
Exactly.
When you are voting on something as fundamental as a Brexit or breakup of a country, it is absolutely essential that it proceed on the basis of unequivocal majority support.
Otherwise, you have the recipe for civil war.
2
Yes a second referendum is fraught with danger but we are now left with no good options. Mrs. May's deal doesn't have majority support neither does a no deal catastrophe. The EU has said the negotiation is over so where do we go from here? I wish I knew. As a committed European I would simply like to remain but do the Europeans still want us? Another referendum would be extremely messy and having suffered through 2 in the past five years (EU and Scottish Independence) I am convinced of one thing - the general population is never in possession of the facts necessary for a decision but rather is swayed by the emotional spin generated by those with an agenda. We vote for politicians to represent us and make informed decisions and that is what is frustrating about the current impasse. A majority in the House of Commons knows that leaving the EU is an act of monumental folly and yet they are unable or unwilling to vote their conscience. After all the referendum was only advisory. That notion has been hijacked by the right wing and has been transmogrified into 'the will of the people' or of the 51% of those who voted. I'm sure we'll now delay but to what end is not clear as of today. The stakes are high. As a strong unionist I never thought I would arrive at a point where I would ever consider independence but in a no deal scenario perhaps we should take the plunge and seek membership as a free Scotland.
25
As discussed in the article, a multi-choice re-vote could result in something less than even a slim majority making the crucial decision. I would instead suggest a two stage vote: (1) choose Brexit or Remain; (2) if Brexit is to occur, choose Soft Brexit (current agreement) or Hard Brexit (no agreement). This way even if Remainders lose the first vote, they would still have a say in how the UK leaves. Not perfect, but in each stage the majority opinion chooses the path forward.
I personally don’t see how this gets done quickly and fairly, but I went through a tough divorce. Much of what I have read about Brexit provokes memories of a similar kind of emotional “I will be better off on my own” sentiment, which can take place without much thought about the realities of life afterwards. Thus, it may inevitable for the UK to separate; after all it did initiate the “divorce” process. However, things don’t necessarily go well for both sides of a divorced couple, and “independence” can be cold comfort when facing life’s realities alone.
7
As the actions of the United States Congress with respect to the shutdown clearly demonstrate, representative democracy (leaving decisions to elected politicians) is much more effective than asking the people what they actually want. Really? Can anyone doubt that if the American people were asked whether the government should reopen without preconditions, such a referendum would pass overwhelmingly?
Yes, politicians could frame a second Brexit referendum in such a way as to muddy the waters further. But they could also frame it in such a way as to resolve the impasse. Two questions, not one: (1) Remain vs hard Brexit. (2) Remain vs the May plan. Fisher and Taub implicitly support Leave.
8
@Theodore Seto
Not quite fair.
Representative democracy works just fine in bi-cameral countries that weren't dumb enough to set up two competing elective bodies against each other.
If having an appointed Senate offends, go uni-cameral, but allow your legislators to do their jobs (not that I don't agree that so many of your legislators are not doing theirs).
"Could." A re-vote "could" make things worse. Whereas the fact is that Brexit is based on the same framework of Russian-backed misinformation, propaganda, and outright lies that landed our United States with Trump. Mr. Putin's goal is to destabilized the West. The Trump administration and Brexit are tools to accomplish that goal. That seems obvious. Re-vote before Brexit isolates and undermines Great Britain economically and politically.
19
@blip-Not only did Russia use social media to covertly promote Brexit (via Cambridge Analytica), Russian officials also met secretly 11 times with Arron Banks, the billionaire British businessman who supported the Brexit campaign, with the largest political donation in British history!! Leaked documents reveal that the Russians discussed letting Banks in on a gold-mining deal that could have produced several billion dollars in easy profit.
"Russian bid to influence Brexit vote detailed in new US Senate report" - UK political system vulnerable to anti-democratic meddling via social media and ‘possibly illicit’ campaign funding, report says.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/10/russian-influence-brexit-vote-detailed-us-senate-report
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign.html
3
This type of argument is used to ignore the real issues that lead to people voting for Brexit or some buffoon. It is blind to the economic conditions that motivate voting patterns. It also portrays the voters as lacking agency but instead are mere pawns moved by sinister outside or deceitful internal forces. It is an argument that itself is disdainful of democracy.
1
I agree that referendums are not as democratic as they might seem. Just look at California, a referendum rich state. There, powerful groups have promoted most referendums. At the risk of sounding elitist, referendums are for the most part a bad idea because they often involve highly complex issues. Ballot initiatives are often confusing and/or cannot fully state the issue. Furthermore, most people do not understand all the complexities and consequences of the initiatives they are voting on. This is not necessarily because people do not have the capability to grasp the issues; rather they do not have the background and/or time to study them thoughtfully. Most of us are busy with work, family, and social life. We need elected experts to represent us in government.
Unfortunately, the political situations throughout the Western Alliance are straining democracy. This is due to immigration, loss of jobs, climate change, social media, and a loss of faith in government. Democracy involves a conundrum as described by Robert Michels during the early twentieth century in his book “Political Parties”. Democracy eventually undermines itself. His key point was that elected leaders increasingly place their own interests ahead of their electorate and this eventually leads to political instability or worse.
Hopefully, the Western Alliance will prove him wrong.
5
No. The more the people get to make their voices heard the better. A second vote is the only thing that will save Britain from this madness. The main impasse is that nobody actually believes British citizens actually want out of the EU yet there is no data to point to that people want to stay.
The second vote will be a vote for clarity on the will of the people. If citizens decide they have changed their minds after seeing how much chaos this has caused the country they can stop it. However, if the people still want out of the EU, despite all the crazyness, then the government will know they can finally make painful decisions they have put off for so long.
They can even schedule a third vote for later this year if people doubt the second vote!
The world is has been horrified to see how the vote happened, but more votes will only go to solidify how the people feel - even if it's horrifying - more information will only help make decisions a society really wants.
3
@Jeff
Hardly the only thing.
You forget they have a 600-member Parliament actually elected to do the job of making such decisions?
2
Theresa May's plan for a negotiated soft Brexit has been rejected by Parliament.
The only option now facing Britain is a No-Deal Brexit . . .
. . . unless Britons are asked, in a new referendum, a new and very clear question:
Are you in favour of a No-Deal Brexit? Yes or No?
1
@Martin Abundance
I think it's wrong to describe May's appalling plan as a "soft" Brexit - there is no (permanent) customs union nor access to the single market. At best, it is an intermediate Brexit. And that is being exceptionally generous.
The politicians in the UK have shown us that they have nothing but contempt for us and that they are almost all putting party before country. This must stop.
9
Many thanks for your thoughts Martin, it’s a little more Legally complex in International Law sadly. When Article 50 of the Lisbon Convention was signed by the UK Government, paragraph 3 states “ All Treaties and Agreements shall cease to apply on 3/29/2019. If all the politicians go on holiday till then and nothing happens, the certainty of No Deal Brexit applies. This is what was agreed. Despite two of the constituent UK countries voting Remain.
3
Thank you Andrew for your thoughts, in Scotland we get quite upset about voting 62% Remain and getting dragged out of EU, however at least we have some degree of representation at National level, London, Manchester, Liverpool and other areas of England who in some cases voted Remain even more decisively than Scotland seem to have no adequate voice. Very sad.
6
In my opinion, PM May should probably announce that:
At this time, Brexit is much more complex than anyone imagined, and that the political climate is too volatile to produce a solution that will benefit Great Britain. Brexit will be put on hold until things can be more precisely defined and implemented to the satisfaction of the public, per the 2016 referendum.
She and Britain can save face while not ignoring the will of the voters, but bowing to pragmatic reality--for the good of the country. I doubt the EU would throw up much fuss in keeping the status quo.
6
The purpose of a second referendum is not to bolster the British way of governance but to avoid the harms of the impending Brexit. Period.
14
Here's a summary of what drove Brexit from Matt Goodwin (an academic specialising in UK Politics)
'support for Brexit has been consistently voiced by those voters who occupy a more precarious financial position, are on lower incomes and feel more pessimistic about their own and the country’s future. It also sheds light on why support for Brexit has consistently been stronger within more economically disadvantaged areas of the country, where average levels of education are lower and, often, there has been scant inward investment.'
This is a world-wide phenomenon - just look at similar divisions in Turkey, Russia, USA, India, Italy, Germany, France................
In France the 'yellow vests' also come from the wrong side of the economic and educational divide
No amount of rational argument can help to change minds on the Brexit issue - we're dealing with deep feelings built up over decades.
As a Remainer I do not support another referendum as the emotions unleashed could scar the UK and break our political system more effectively than Trump and Bannon
We can get some tweaks on May's deal and let's go with it even if it makes a lot of people poorer and reduces life chances for generations to come. Thank you, David Cameron
4
@Jephsonite
I think you are right about the motives of a large portion of the leave vote.
I would like to see a final say on the choices we have at the end of the day (May's deal, another deal Parliament agrees on or remain) along with an acknowledgement that many who voted leave have been left behind and that policies will have to change to address this.
The next problem will be getting a government who can do this.
1
As the real price of what a no-deal Brexit would do to Britain's economy becomes ever clearer, it's hard to imagine even the most stalwart supporter of it might not blink twice, especially when it means the price of medicine and imported goods will go up or become increasingly unavailable.
And then there's the fate of Northern Ireland whose borders would be compromised and Scotland, which only decided to stay linked to the United Kingdom in its own 2014 Referendum because it was part of the E.U.
Any way you look at it, it will be a hard decision to make and no one knows this better than Theresa May.
2
@N. Smith You would think so, but evidently not. Many pro-hard Brexit people think the economic warnings are "government scaremongering" and pooh-pooh them.
1
With no clear consensus on what action to take, why not a referendum to postpone Brexit for five years with a committment to have another vote at that time. In adition, any vote to leave would require a significant majority, say 60% or more, rather than 51% to make sure it has widespread support.
A five year interval would give both sides time to build their case with a much better understanding of the implications of staying, or leaving and under which circumstances. All the issues of fake news, the borders in Ireland, could be worked on at a measured pace. Right now, the only assurance is that most people will be unhappy with any of the alternatives currently being considered actually come to pass.
5
@David Cook
And leave themselves in flux for 5 more years?
The correct thing to do would be for the people to insist that Parliament do its job and make the decision on their behalf - no more referenda.
This is nonsense. The first vote was based on lies that could only become clear once the process started. That’s the reason why sentiment has shifted to the point that people talk about a second.
In any decision process it is perfectly possible for an initial decision to be reversed based on later knowledge. In this case there is no other mechanism for the decision to be revisited. That’s regardless of whether the first referendum was a good idea or not.
For the Brexit process to proceed unchecked despite the clear evidence of a need to reassess the attitude of the population is not only undemocratic, it’s outrageous. And most of the politicians arguing otherwise are the same ones who lied their way into this mess from the beginning.
6
@Jerryg
Particularly because in the parliamentary system, referenda do not bind Parliament.
Parliament can and must do its duty and make the decision they see in the best interests of their citizens.
2
How did the Brexit referendum become binding in the minds of the British people and government? A matter that is so complicated in implementation ends up with people trying to force a couple dozen paths into a binary framework that is senseless. . Every quote of “Brexit means Brexit” as if Brexit couldn’t mean a dozen mutually exclusive paths and that it has to mean one thing shows the idiocy of the approach.
The parliament should just stop trying to respect the referendum as holy writ and let voters punish it or not at the polls. If voters really think democracy is at stake then they can assert themselves.
5
Why not ask for a vote on one of three options now that there is more clarity of what Brexit entails?
1) May's Brexit Deal
2) No Deal
3) Remain in the EU
If Remain loses, they can't really claim it was all propaganda and a lack of understanding like the first time around and it gives the Brexiters the choice of their vision of Brexit.
1
I've been enjoying the hilarious entertainment of UK politics since the Brexit vote and hope to see more ironic twists to the David Cameron's fateful "self-own" in floating the first referendum. What amazing hubris and quick career end!
Seriously, the key phrase in Fisher and Taub's analysis "independent institutions intended to protect the common good." Good intentions are nice, but as history shows, the intended good never materializes, and the common good is never served. I'd like to know what British institutions are really working for the common good.
The monarchy? Parliament?
Who is protecting the common good from the folly of a small group of Conservative Party members? Who is protecting the common good from the continued oppression of working classes by the rich? What institutions will step into the fray when the UK economy tanks and the poor and working classes are devastated by the loss of jobs, healthcare, access to education, food, and shelter?
And what institutions will prevent the rich from profiting off the broken economy? History shows us that once again the rich will thrive off the chaos and the suffering of the commoners.
6
@Sam McCool
All good points.
But given the serious negative consequences, I'm not at all sure why you're laughing or seeing it as entertainment.
I mean, have you taken a look in your own backyard recently?
There's nothing to laugh at.
1
This article verges on being complete nonsense. You can't dismiss the legitimacy of referendums without a thorough review of the Swiss experience which goes back centuries, and Switzerland is probably the most stable, enduring democracy on earth.
As for the Brexit case, the first referendum was an appalling exercise wherein people voted with no adequate information about the implications of what they were voting for. The standard of the debate was abysmal on both sides and no basis for making an informed choice. No-one had a clue what the terms of the separation could be and what impacts they would have.
Now that there have been two years of lived education about what Brexit could imply for the welfare of the British economy and British people, the case for a second referendum is that at least it will be much better informed. It should be very clear by now that they can't eat their cake and have it, and that alone should give pause to be careful about what they wish for.
4
@Mark
I would not say Switzerland was THE MOST stable, but I'd put it in the top group of countries.
More importantly, the Swiss system would require a double majority for something like Brexit i.e. a majority of the votes and majorities in a majority of cantons.
Brexit failed in two of the four nations that make up the UK. As well, the border between Eire and Northern Ireland is the subject of an international agreement among the UK, Eire, the US and the EU. The UK cannot unilaterally abrogate the Good Friday Agreement.
The nature of the issue is important here. Most issues can be revisited perhaps many times. One Parliament cannot bind its successors. Brexit is not something which can be done/undone every few years. As such some sort of super majority is called for.
8
@Mark
How on earth could any Canadian favour referenda over good governance, given what we have (until recently) endured here?
Be careful what you wish for, indeed.
@Michele K Thank you. Peace order and good government. Decisions which cannot be easily reversed within an electoral cycle must be made with both great debate and require super majorities.
While some referenda resulted in things I like, I have never met a referendum I liked.
In my other comment, I pointed to our flag debate (I'm a Canadian) and compared it to the decision of NZ to go the referendum route.
1
Yes, there should be a second referendum, but only after the following criteria are established (warning- I have been accused of being an idealist!) :
1. At least 60% (I prefer 70%) of the vote in favor of any decision.
2. The referendum must be repeated if less than 75% of the population actually vote. This would ensure that the majority respect the decision.
3. A complete list of possible consequences, with actual facts and figures supporting + and - outcomes will be supplied to all in easily accessible and free locations and publications in a timely manner, so that everyone knows what they’re voting for/against.
Idealistic, sure. But the reality of what’s happening is so destructive that alternatives must be explored, even far-fetched ones.
Judith Greene
New York, NY
3
Was the first Brexit vote democratic? No! The vote was undermined by Cambridge Analytica. Brexit is a fraud perpetrated by the Mercer’s. Vote again and accept the results if the election is untainted.
6
@Doug You are right. The claim of millions and millions for the NHS has to account for some of the votes for leave.
Your point is right on the money. Before we can discuss the referenda and democracy, we need to be clear that vote was fatally tainted.
3
The first referendum came without a price tag. A second should come with clear and predictable costs. Any politician who touts his own plan should be offered the chance to negotiate it.
3
A no-deal Brexit may be the worst outcome economically, but it may not be the worst outcome for Britain politically.
Almost all the other possibilities are likely to leave this bitterly-disputed issue to continue to poison Britain's body politic.
For example, the article rightly points out that the most likely result of a second referendum is a narrow victory for one side or the other - which will very probably leave the losing side to continue to fight for their point of view.
And if the decision is to have a second referendum to reverse the verdict of the first, why not a third to reverse the second? Why should a second referendum (unless won by a very convincing margin) be any more conclusive than the first?
To take the outcome widely regarded as the most likely, a narrow victory for some form of Remain or soft-Brexit ("Brexit in name only"). Leave's more passionate supporters would be very unlikely to let the matter rest if this is the result: after all, they have already been campaigning for their cause for decades.
A no-deal Brexit could have the benefit of putting this issue to rest for good. Leavers would presumably be satisfied, and there would be no way back for Remain, so it would be pointless to continue to hanker after a return to the EU (who would probably be very reluctant to readmit the troublesome British anyway).
And a no-deal Brexit would also lessen the chances of a break-up of the United Kingdom, which Mrs May's deal made much more likely.
@David Buckland
Economic catastrophe would lead to social unrest. The government is actually preparing for this with the military to be on standby.
And all this would make a breakup of the UK a lot more likely with Scotland voting for independence and a distinct possibility Ireland and Northern Ireland would vote to reunite.
12
@Joan
For the first time ever, the Unionists don't have a majority of seats in the Northern Irish Assembly. Interestingly, the size and electoral system used for the Northern Ireland Assembly is now aligned with Dáil Éireann so that it would fit right in.
Scotland will indeed go. And Wales may be on its way out.
3
I think that another referendum is coming - whether it's on Brexit, or Scottish independence, is another question. (If Brexit goes through, the odds of the Scots taking a vote on bolting back to the EU is pretty good.) Perhaps they should phrase the question "Keep the UK or be reduced to Just England?"
1
David Cameron, in order to extend his leadership of the Conservative party and likely his term as Prime Minister for... what... a couple of years...., has brought about the polarization of the British people, a likely 10% drop in the nation's GDP and the possible dissolution of the United Kingdom as Scotland and Northern Ireland come to see the Union as a millstone.
Conservatives. Selling out their nation's future and the wellbeing of their individual constituents for short-term political gain. To them, there is nothing beyond the pale when political power is on the table.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
69
Referenda are inherently undemocratic. Brexit (like many issues) is complex and not binary. Even the alternatives are oversimplified Canada, Canada +; Norway, Norway +;etc. The devil is always in the details. Public debate and the legislative process (process is key ) over a period of time is how policy is made in a democratic manner. Simply, democracy needs time plus the ability to amend or even go a different way.
One would think that a new national flag is such a simple idea that a referendum would be good way to go. Anyone can like or dislike one. . Yet, the experiences of Canada and New Zealand demonstrate the strength of a democratic process over a referendum. The original flags of both countries had a union jack in the upper left corner (forget the fancy terms used by flag designers). The desire was to get away from a colonial holdover although some wanted to keep that historical memory.
In the 1960s, Canada had a long, bitter debate about replacing the red ensign. More people weighed in than in any other issue. A special committee was struck to deal with a new flag. Designs flew around including one from the PM. The Maple Leaf we all know emerged late in the process.
New Zealand recently had a double referendum; do you want a new flag? If so, which of these designs do you want? The referendum was almost designed to fail. A similar double referendum on a new electoral system failed in BC last month.
A final slogan. Yes or No is not the way to go.
My concern with having a second referendum on Brexit is its lack of clear authority. Should the vote be to stay with the EU, pro-Brexit folks would rightly complain that each referendum should have equal weight. That seems to me a fair argument opening the door to unlimited referenda.
How could this problem be resolved or at least minimized? Several ways, I’m sure. A second referendum could be scheduled on whether or not to vote on the issue again (which, if supported, would require a THIRD referendum). If the second referendum did not support voting on Brexit again, leaving the EU proceeds. If the decision is to allow another vote on Brexit, that next vote must be final.
Another possibility would be simply to have two more referenda identical to the first one. If the second referendum supports a brexit, then leaving the EU proceeds, with little doubt about the will of the people. If Brexit is not supported, a reasonable cooling-off period ensues before it is voted on a THIRD time. A vote not to support Brexit means 2 out of 3 referenda supported staying - Britain stays. If Brexit is supported, leaving the EU proceeds. Either way, the group that wins twice will have a far better claim to representing the will of the people. These are clearly rough ideas that need a lot of polishing but they may inspire more creative and workable solutions.
The closer political decisions come to the "people", the messier the political process becomes. Not a nice thing to say, but there is incontrovertible evidence that we, in mass, are messy, unpredictable, and easily manipulated. Think I'm on the fringe, read John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, etc.
My favorite example supporting the rule is the Athenian Assembly during the Peloponnesian War; after an Athenian defeat in the battle of Arginusae, the Assembly, swayed by heated rhetoric of those not actually at the battle, voted to execute admirals accused of not doing enough to rescue hundreds of sailors in the water. Six admirals were executed. Later, testimony of those actually in battle proved the charge untrue. Too late for six admirals. We are, en masse, easily manipulated and no matter how the subject of a referendum is phrased, those determine the choices in the referendum have a better chance of controlling the outcome.
2
The same polls which are now showing public opinion slightly in favor of remaining, predicted the same for Cameron. Polls are not believable, because they are easily manipulated. Votes are more reliable, but you can't just ask the same question repeatedly until you get "your" right answer.
1
Okay so maybe Brexit isn't such a hot idea but is the EU such a great alternative ? You read about all the problems the EU is facing today and you have to wonder...
1
@Gregg A. The EU brought 70 years of peace to a continent that, for centuries, had war after war after war. That alone should make the EU a great alternative.
8
The authors' criticisms of referenda conspicuously neglect all the ways "representative" government is itself corrupt and undemocratic. Every problem cited for referenda also occurs in some form during candidate elections. The very real power of deceptive advertising to influence voters makes elections more like products battling for market share than surveys of policy preferences, resulting in a government that no more "represents" the will of voters than Coca Cola "represents" the wishes of Coke drinkers.
14
All this article says is that the Brits have gotten themselves into a fine mess with no solution that will leave a a clear majority (67%+) happy.
2
The people of Great Britain need only glimpse at the chaos Americans are living through today before casting a second vote. There's a fundamental similarity between our protracted government shutdown and the goods and services that would be lost if Brexit happens without a plan. Even worse for the Brits, their chaos would have little chance of reversing itself in the future, while our government and a sense of sanity can be restored when Trump is out of the White House.
1
I did not vote in the referendum for three reasons.
1) I am old and will not live to see the effects on the younger people who will have to live with the results.
2) The case for leaving was a mass of lies. One still continuing is the £350M a week cost of the EU. When one takes account of subsidies returned to Britain the cost was around £110M. The case for staying in the EU whether right or wrong was poorly made.
3) I am worried about the stability of the EU with the present governments of Poland, Hungary and Italy. Austria, France and Germany are having their own troubles.
The mass of different views that have arisen since the problems of leaving became apparent show that uninformed referendums are hazardous.
45
@irdac
"The mass of different views that have arisen since the problems of leaving became apparent show that uninformed referendums are hazardous.
As is voter apathy.
12
Now you are more informed and I hope you will vote this time. Your thoughtfulness is needed.
6
@irdac
So what you're saying is: faced with a choice between "pack of lies" and "poorly argued case", you chose to abdicate your responsibilities as a citizen of Britain and Europe. You have plenty of company, though more in the US than anywhere else. A well-known Briton said that democracy is the worst form of government, excepting all others. He neglected to add that failing to make that best-of-the-worst choice tends to lead to worse.
8
It is not just a matter of referendums: it is a matter of information. The first Brexit vote (like the election of Trump) was misguided because people were voting their displeasures, not their reasoned grievances (if any). The first Brexit vote was a clear example of the "revolt of the masses," the revolt of the dissatisfied, not the decision of the intelligent. Please, do not repeat this. Make sure there is a campaign of information, of what the issues are, why there was dissatisfaction before the first Brexit, what the reasons for it were, how they could be remedied, what changes would have to be made, what the real consequences of either course would be -- in other words, seek wisdom first, and prudence in decision, before any new referendum. St. Ignatius Loyola constructed a whole set of meditations (called "The Spiritual Exercises") precisely to make sure that one chose the right thing, and was not led by bigotry, ignorance, or disgrace. Something like this is needed before a new Brexit.
1
What would the question be? "Do you acknowledge that you are now forever trapped in a supra-national political system dominated by the French and the Germans?"
The very difficulty of exiting has confirmed everything about the loss of sovereignty the Brexiteers had claimed. I think the Leave vote would increase.
2
Ever since this all came up in the year before the Brexit vote I thought there should have been a third way that was tried first: Renegotiate with the EU, under the threat of Brexit, the terms of Britons involvement in the Union.
Yes, the EU may have looked with great disdain and general hostility to new negotiations - but under threat of a possible/probable leave they may have worked out some term changes that most Britains could have lived with.
The least damaging and contentious approach should have been tried first. That's my opinion at least.
But again, this all came about because Cameron thought he had the finger on the nation's pulse. He obviously didn't.
5
It's time for stability, the world has had it's rebellious period for now. The US will deal with trump and Britian should do away with Brexit for now. We are all stronger together.
5
A little grace would be helpful here. There is nothing wrong with a person or a group saying "We did not know." Only the Truth of God never changes, and that is the presence of Love in all things. But in this world, the truth shifts depending upon circumstances. What is the best for all is the greatest freedom to choose. A second vote is freedom in action. But the second vote should clearly lay out the consequences and it should negotiate benefits for those who lose. It shouldn't be a one size fits all result.
2
I don’t understand why a referendum of this impact was decided with a simple majority.
55
@BT12345 Indeed, it shouldn't have been. I blame Cameron for that.
1
One might say that Britain has hit the wall. Brexit makes as much policy sense as Trump's vanity project. Without a second referendum, Brexit will happen in the worst possible way. Sure, a second referendum is risky and messy, but what better choice is there?
20
Parliament is in gridlock with no majority for any option. May has not changed her mind on anything notwithstanding the defeat of her deal by the biggest margin in history. Various factions in both parties are pushing for different outcomes.
Meanwhile, while MPs duke it out the ship of state is heading inexorably for the falls. As matters stand now, the UK leaves the EU on 29 March deal or no deal. That will be a catastrophe.
If Parliament and the PM cannot get their act together to prevent this, the only thing left is to send the question back to the people.
As for "undermining faith in British democracy" I don't see how faith in British democracy can go any lower.
6
Is this really that hard? A referendum with two questions: (1) remain or leave? (2) if leave wins again, then hard brexit or May’s plan?
Problem solved.
3
@Reader Have you actually been following any of this?!
7
@josieX Yes, I have. Did you read this article? The author sets up a series of false choices regarding what a referendum would ask and then concludes that a referendum wouldn't work. In particularly, the author is worried that there would be no clear majority if voters were asked, in one question, to choose between remain, hard brexit, or soft brexit. The author is also concerned that simply asking voters again to choose between leave and remain won't resolve the question of hard v soft brexit if the voters again choose to leave. My solution solves both of those problems.
Let's face it: ANY step to resolve the chaos will produce rage in half the country--because there are now no good paths to unity. Surely it is better to proceed with a do-over referendum than to allow the decision to rest with Parliament. Why? Because we saw last week that the Tories will hold their noses and support Theresa May's dubious leave 'plans' in order to keep their party in power. A division among the Tories would open the door to Labour. Yes, a second referendum might have the same outcome as the first and lead to a no-deal Brexit, with all that that entails: some problems have no good solution. But there's a bright spot: living with a hard Brexit might prompt the Scots, sooner or later, for their own economic welfare, to make the leap into the unknown and leave the UK. They don't need permission: the English will not come after them with fixed bayonets. As in all divorces, it will just be a matter of dividing up the assets.
6
I thought many of the arguments for Brexit in the first referendum were misleading or outright false. Now, after many months of negotiating, everyone should have access to the same set of facts about what an exit from the EU would actually mean. Hopefully, after given real facts, the people can make a more rational decision. The government must actively counter all the false information.
14
@jan winters - I agree in principle with what you've written but I doubt anyone or group can even determine what the "facts" are at this point. At least all the facts. Facts in the regrettable Brexit drama are as elusive and facts in the US right now. And I'm not talking about the media, who I believe do a good job in general - I'm talking about from leadership.
5
Have a vote where voting is obligatory; reward voters and punish non-voters. Establish pre-election limits and sanctions on political advertising and messaging.
1
These are all excellent points and the article certainly makes clear the highly questionable nature of referenda. Even so, having another British referendum on the question of whether or not to leave the EU is the best option. The article points out that a vote to stay could further undermine faith in the political system, but that has already happened. Many Britons feel that the future of their country was compromised and weakened by internal Conservative political machinations. Many young Britons feel cheated out of their future. For these people, the political system and the political elites already failed. At least another referendum would be on the reality of Brexit rather than the fantasy. If a majority of Britons still support that, then fine. Let them live with the consequences, since it is clearly what they want. As an aside, coming from Canada, I can attest to how dangerous referenda can be. Over the past 45 years, separatist governments in Quebec held two referenda asking for a mandate to separate from Canada. The second one, in 1995, came incredibly close to getting a bare majority in favour. After that, the federal govt passed laws requiring any such referenda to have a clear question and to require at least 60% of the vote in favour, arguing that breaking up a country should require more than a simple plurality.
62
@Shaun Narine
So, I don't get your reasoning.
Our experience in Canada is that improper referenda don't work and are extremely risky.
Why would you advocate for another one, rather than arguing that Parliament should do its job and make their own decision?
1
@Michele K
Referenda are not intrinsically dangerous. Referenda of poorly conceived and phrased questions are dangerous.
A second vote would actually reinstate faith in British democracy. Now after two years of discussion, the British people are in a much better and more knowledgeable position to vote on the Brexit issue.
56
@Robert Pryor Speaking from the UK, I also would have thought after two years we would be more informed Robert, however I can tell you people are no better informed, just more angry about their respective positions. Facts, information and forecasts have very little to do with public opinion on this one.
9
@Robert Pryor
America hasn't really become any more rational since two years of Trump.
Why would you assume some miracle has made Britain so?
1
David Cameron proposed the referendum because there had been previous votes to leave the EU that were crushed. There was no plan for how to actually leave the EU. Just a bunch of Trump like noise makers that promised an entrepreneurial resurgence of Britannia without foreigners. The UK has been punished with draconian austerity on the assumption by the Conservatives that it will somehow lead to economic rejuvenation. What has done is punish the middle class and the poor. Brexit has been spectacularly mismanaged. The thought that the UK could just walk away from the formal ties it has with the EU was preposterous. The UK gained tremendous trade benefits from the EU. But it came with regulatory annoyances and the free mov't of people across borders.
27
@c harris
The residents of the UK who voted for Brexit represent the same segment of the population who have been most hurt by the Conservatives' deconstruction of the social safety net.
Make the lives of the poor a living hell. Threaten the middle class with becoming poor. Then tell them it's the fault of the Pole who collects their rubbish.
Once again, sound familiar?
15
Practical democracy, you remind us, is the worst form of government... except for its alternatives.
Those alternatives right now are so patently grim and awkward that you do not even discuss them
13
Interesting analysis but would be even better if it endorsed an alternative. No referendum but then ... what ?
15
@Kevin I don't think anyone knows.
To paraphrase Churchill, democracy is the worst political system...except for all the others. In this case the most direct application of democracy in the form of another referendum offers the best potential solution to the massive mess created by the first one. To be sure the first result was reached with the help of widespread disingenuous propaganda on the part of the Leave crowd, now broadly exposed. No one loves the idea of a do-over philosophically but it’s probably the least-worst option and clearest path to averting a truly disastrous outcome.
35
Churchill is also thought to have said that the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
5
A second referendum is not a problem by itself. Rather the fierce division and near split in the opinion about remaining or leaving makes a referendum problematic.
There are two better solutions:
Parliament votes either to accept the deal or stay.
Or Theresa May does Britain one heroic service after a series of dismal failures. She ignores the non-binding referendum from 2016 and nullifies her previous exit declaration in the name of national security.
And finally life goes on.
73
@Oliver Herfort To stage another referendum on the status quo (eg UK is a EU member) with no statement of what constitutes a majority to over ride the status quo other than a 51% vote is FOLLY. The current representatives must take the responsibility to vote Brexit out/gone/history. they should not wimp out by fobbing the job off on a Referendum which really is not the best form of representative govt.
1
She does not have the authority to just walk away. Parliament passed a statute directing her action, specifically triggering Article 50. Until Parliament passes another statute allowing her to withdraw, she can do nothing but talk unless the EU unilaterally stops process on its end.
2