The 2016 Referendum was foisted on the voters by a PM (Cameron) who couldn't give a damn and seemed to treat it as a joke.
It was then (as it turned out) treated as a vehicle for blatant lying and misrepresentation (on both sides).

If, (and it could be a big 'if'), a second referendum is put forward, instead of the stupid 'Remain/Leave' tick boxes, how should it be worded in order to give a voter a clearer informative idea of what's involved?

(It should, of course, not be too 'wordy' - perhaps with concise 'bullet points' ).

Choose one option:

- I want to remain in the E.U. collective and add my biological and technological diversity to theirs.

- Piss Off, Johnny Foreigner!

Alan B wrote:The 2016 Referendum was foisted on the voters by a PM (Cameron) who couldn't give a damn and seemed to treat it as a joke.

The question was decided by parliament and the electoral commission.

Cameron promised to hold a referendum in the 2015 GE manifesto and therefore he could claim to have a mandate for it.

Maybe Cameron "foisted the offer of a vote" on the voters.

The European Union Referendum Act when first introduced as a Bill into the UK Parliament set out the proposed referendum question

The European Union Referendum Act when first introduced as a Bill into the UK Parliament set out the proposed referendum question

As for another referendum, I don't know. So far there are no viable deals available that both UK parliament and the EU would agree to.


I think status quo probably should not be on there because many on all sides will call that anti-democratic.

Maybe
A) Crash out now with no deal
B) Extend the transition period and Keep working on it

Alan B wrote:how should it be worded in order to give a voter a clearer informative idea of what's involved?

I don't think it's possible to substantially inform the voter on the ballot paper. The question has to be clear and simple and the understanding of what those clear options represent has to be established before the poll is held.

Alan B wrote:The 2016 Referendum was foisted on the voters by a PM (Cameron) who couldn't give a damn and seemed to treat it as a joke.
It was then (as it turned out) treated as a vehicle for blatant lying and misrepresentation (on both sides).

If, (and it could be a big 'if'), a second referendum is put forward, instead of the stupid 'Remain/Leave' tick boxes, how should it be worded in order to give a voter a clearer informative idea of what's involved?

(It should, of course, not be too 'wordy' - perhaps with concise 'bullet points' ).

It shouldn't. People voted on an unequivocal question, and even though the result was not the one I wanted or expected, the fundamental principle of democracy is that the people decided.

If, after that decision is actually carried out we change our minds, then a new decision should be available, but until it is, the campaign to reverse the referendum remains the same as it was the day after the referendum - an exercise in throwing the country into constitutional crisis by frustrating democracy.

The people who now expect a second referendum because they did not know what they were voting for had a whole year to educate themselves about the matter so have no excuse. Had they won there would be no talk about a second referendum
There was no talk about one before the result so there should be none now. They can move the goalposts as much as they like but they have no choice but to accept the referendum result regardless of how much they dislike it. It is not actually about what they like or dislike. I was surprised by the result for a day. Since then I have accepted it without reservation
even though I never actually voted in the referendum. By the laws of averages you cannot expect to win all of the time
Losing is actually good since it stops one from becoming too complacent about democracy and the democratic process

surreptitious57 wrote:The people who now expect a second referendum because they did not know what they were voting for had a whole year to educate themselves about the matter so have no excuses

The problem with that is nobody had a clear idea of what Brexit would look like, and they still don't. One side said it would be a doddle, save us billions and make us rich, and the other side said it would ruin us and neither side really knew what they were talking about.


If anyone can work out a viable Brexit plan then everyone will be in a position to know vastly more than they did in 2016.

It would be entirely democratic to ask the people which of a few versions of Brexit that can be had they actually want. It would be rather less deomcratic to put remain on the ballot.

Thommo wrote:.. the campaign to reverse the referendum remains the same as it was the day after the referendum - an exercise in throwing the country into constitutional crisis by frustrating democracy.

You are right, however, despite the very large overlap, I think there are legitimate motivations for another vote beyond "the campaign to reverse the referendum".

I think it should be worded in English.

GrahamH wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Alan B wrote:... the campaign to reverse the referendum remains the same as it was the day after the referendum - an exercise in throwing the country into constitutional crisis by frustrating democracy.

You are right, however, despite the very large overlap, I think there are legitimate motivations for another vote beyond "the campaign to reverse the referendum".

Oi! I didn't write that.

surreptitious57 wrote:The people who now expect a second referendum because they did not know what they were voting for had a whole year to educate themselves about the matter so have no excuse. Had they won there would be no talk about a second referendum

You're mixing two sets of people up. The ones complaining that they didn't know what they were voting for are presumably some of those who voted leave, as people who voted remain are unlikely not to know what 'keep things as they are' means. So the ones complaining they didn't know what they were voting for are leavers who have since changed their minds, so they did 'win'.

There was no talk about one before the result so there should be none now.

That's kind of a non-sequitur, and a little peek into your black-and-white mindset. The fact that there was no talk about a lot of things before the result is one of the problems.

They can move the goalposts as much as they like but they have no choice but to accept the referendum result regardless of how much they dislike it.

Well um...no, that's what this conversation is about - the possibility of a second referendum. We are not talking about some grand cosmic unchangeable event here. We're talking about votes and rules made up by humans. Anything can be changed if the right people want it to be.

It is not actually about what they like or dislike. I was surprised by the result for a day. Since then I have accepted it without reservation

So what?

even though I never actually voted in the referendum. By the laws of averages you cannot expect to win all of the time
Losing is actually good since it stops one from becoming too complacent about democracy and the democratic process

It sounds lie you're talking about a football match. It's not about winning or losing a competition. People are genuinely worried about whats going to happen.

Thommo wrote:

Alan B wrote:The 2016 Referendum was foisted on the voters by a PM (Cameron) who couldn't give a damn and seemed to treat it as a joke.
It was then (as it turned out) treated as a vehicle for blatant lying and misrepresentation (on both sides).

If, (and it could be a big 'if'), a second referendum is put forward, instead of the stupid 'Remain/Leave' tick boxes, how should it be worded in order to give a voter a clearer informative idea of what's involved?

(It should, of course, not be too 'wordy' - perhaps with concise 'bullet points' ).

It shouldn't. People voted on an unequivocal question, and even though the result was not the one I wanted or expected, the fundamental principle of democracy is that the people decided.

If, after that decision is actually carried out we change our minds, then a new decision should be available, but until it is, the campaign to reverse the referendum remains the same as it was the day after the referendum - an exercise in throwing the country into constitutional crisis by frustrating democracy.

'The people' didn't decide. Fractionally over half the people decided, and they didn't actually know what they were deciding, since the referendum question was ridiculously simplistic. I voted remain for this very reason - I had no clue what Brexit would look like.

Fallible wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Alan B wrote:The 2016 Referendum was foisted on the voters by a PM (Cameron) who couldn't give a damn and seemed to treat it as a joke.
It was then (as it turned out) treated as a vehicle for blatant lying and misrepresentation (on both sides).

If, (and it could be a big 'if'), a second referendum is put forward, instead of the stupid 'Remain/Leave' tick boxes, how should it be worded in order to give a voter a clearer informative idea of what's involved?

(It should, of course, not be too 'wordy' - perhaps with concise 'bullet points' ).

It shouldn't. People voted on an unequivocal question, and even though the result was not the one I wanted or expected, the fundamental principle of democracy is that the people decided.

If, after that decision is actually carried out we change our minds, then a new decision should be available, but until it is, the campaign to reverse the referendum remains the same as it was the day after the referendum - an exercise in throwing the country into constitutional crisis by frustrating democracy.

'The people' didn't decide. Fractionally over half the people decided, and they didn't actually know what they were deciding, since the referendum question was ridiculously simplistic. I voted remain for this very reason - I had no clue what Brexit would look like.

I disagree. There's a vague sense in which people did not and still do not know what they were voting for or against, but the ballot question was as unambiguous as it gets "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?". Yes, the implications of leaving were to some extent unclear, to the 72% of the electorate that turned out. The implications of remaining are also (even now) somewhat unclear, although, perhaps to lesser immediate effect. But the question was as clear as it could possibly be, and the fact is that those people who talk about unclear consequences essentially do so not on their own behalf, and not on behalf of consequences that were unclear, but now are, they project them onto the people they disagreed with all along.

That bothers me.

I often feel that I'm the only person who doesn't know what what the future will bring - inside or outside the EU. I wasn't sure that EU membership would be great for Greece, when article 50 was drawn up, and if I'm honest I'm still not sure it was the right thing to do. I'm not sure that federalism is the right policy for the EU, but it's the one it's pursuing, with all that entails. There's a serious backlash on immigration, to the point that refugees are being left to drown in the Mediterranean every day as a response to concerns over economic migration, when the two priorities are completely arse about face. I'm not sure about the consequences of allocating political functions to ever more influential civil servants in the commission. I'm not sure about the numerous protectionist policies the EU runs, which in the hands of Trump would be considered a travesty. The future inside the EU is not certain. I could not tell you what British GDP growth would be next year, were we to reverse our decision, and frankly, nor can any expert. I could not tell you what British productivity growth would be next year, were we to reverse our decision, and again, nor can any expert. Eleven out of ten of them will prove very good at telling you, in retrospect, why they were wrong.

I also feel the future outside the EU is uncertain, and that's the uncertainty we hear about every day. To a degree I agree with that uncertainty. We don't know what will happen, and if the EU decides to act against us, it will likely be bad. On the other hand, when I look around the world at Western, English speaking non EU countries, none of them are quite the hellscape I read about every day either. I was asked today (in another ongoing thread here at Ratskep) to justify how lower taxes on corporations could benefit society, but this is the very premise of the economic argument (which sometimes presents the illusion of being the only issue of note regarding Brexit) against leaving the EU - corporations won't invest, jobs will leave, Britain's GDP will fall.

Brexit is unlikely to be economically beneficial (in fact likely to be detrimental, at least in the short term), especially over the next four to six years, in my opinion. But the idea that remain voters were better informed, or that economic forecasts now are worse than they were pre-referendum? No, sorry, I don't buy it. We were assured things would already be worse than the current forecasts are, before we'd even left. I believe Osborne promised a revenue figure of £30bn over some period, to have already occurred. Thankfully, that was wrong. The reaction to that mistake hasn't been a rethink though, it's doubling down on the idea that one side of the debate was uninformed, even whilst admitting the other side was uniformed to the tune of that £30bn. I'm sorry to say, that in fact, in economic terms, both sides were and still are uninformed. Nothing new has come to light (unless you value being £30bn better off than the pre-referendum forecast that didn't put off the decision). And if that means I don't get my preference, I'm extremely queasy about pretending that means a democratic vote that would have been decided if voted one way suddenly doesn't count when it goes the other.

Slightly OT.
'Democracy' in action. If people can't be bothered to vote then 'sod them'. In this case it's more than a quarter of the registered voters. I suppose they don't matter.
2016 Referendum

Total Registered Voters 46,500,001 100%
Total Remain Votes 16,141,241 34.71%
Total Leave Votes 17,410,742 37.44%
Total Non-Voters 12,948,018 27.85%
Total Votes Cast 33,551,983 72.15%

Total Remain + Non-voters 29,089,259 62.56%
Total Leave + Non-voters 30,358,760 65.29%
Leave Votes as a percent of Total Votes 51.89%
Remain Votes as a percent of Total Votes 48.11%
Non-Votes as a percent of Total Votes 38.59%

Personally, I think that there should be a mandatory voting system with an option to abstain on the voting slip. Voters must register their abstention if they so choose. This will ensure that false assumptions do not result in non-voting from 'the result is obvious' so 'why bother' attitude. But I suppose some people would call that 'undemocratic'.

OT. Why isn't the formatting maintained when I submit?

Most General Elections are won with only a minority vote and accepted without question either. Even the so called land slide victories of Thatcher and Blair were minority victories. The referendum was won by a very small margin but as soon as it was known the goalposts started moving. The result apparently was too close. Rather interesting to note how too close was never a problem before the result only after. For this is what happens when democracy does not conform to someones expectations of it even though that is not actually what it is for

That said the fact of the matter is that absolutely no one at all in the country has the remotest idea what will happen once we do leave because there is no precedent for it. Only time will tell although even then ones interpretation will depend on how one voted [ or would have voted if they voted the wrong way the first time round ] But I shall wait for twenty years to
see what effect it has had because for something this significant you need serious reptilian patience. I therefore make zero predictions for that would be a very silly thing to do

Alan B wrote:
Personally, I think that there should be a mandatory voting system with an option to abstain on the voting slip. Voters must register their abstention if they so choose. This will ensure that false assumptions do not result in non-voting from 'the result is obvious' so 'why bother' attitude. But I suppose some people would call that 'undemocratic'.

I strongly disagree. If there are people who feel they are ambivalent, or do not know what the best answer is, it's an intolerable use of the law to punish them for that honest feeling. There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest forcing the people who care the least about voting to vote, or who are the least persuaded by either side to vote makes for a better democracy.

All it does is allow those in power to ignore the symptoms of not engaging voters.

Alan B wrote:OT. Why isn't the formatting maintained when I submit?

You need to use formatting commands compatible with PHPBB forum code, which are governed by surrounding text in square bracketed commands, like:

Code: Select all

[quote][/quote]
[i][/i]
[u][/u]
[size=200][/size]

Thommo wrote:

Alan B wrote:
Personally, I think that there should be a mandatory voting system with an option to abstain on the voting slip. Voters must register their abstention if they so choose. This will ensure that false assumptions do not result in non-voting from 'the result is obvious' so 'why bother' attitude. But I suppose some people would call that 'undemocratic'.

I strongly disagree. If there are people who feel they are ambivalent, or do not know what the best answer is, it's an intolerable use of the law to punish them for that honest feeling. There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest forcing the people who care the least about voting to vote, or who are the least persuaded by either side to vote makes for a better democracy.

All it does is allow those in power to ignore the symptoms of not engaging voters.

The suggestion was to provide an abstain or none of th above option on the ballot paper, so nobody would be penalised for feeling ambivalent about the options, only for not making the small effort to put a tick on a form either at a poling station or by other means.
That could be a positive in that it marks a clear separation in results between those who can't be bothered to turn out and those who find no option they can support.

I'm ambivalent about compulsory voting and what effect it might have on the quality of democratic decisions, but it isn't "intolerable".