EU referendum are you in or out

[VNVObit]

Any reason you think we're actually better off out (other than e.g. bloody-mindedness)?

Well, first, I will be staggered if it became any more than an academic question.

Principally, principle.

Worse off for a while, certainly. In the longer-term [say 10 - 20] I'm not so sure.

The reality is no one is sure and thought the remain side overplayed the fear the worst hand.

I voted remain not because I thought that the EU was wonderful but because it has acted as a filter that could soften for the worst excesses of rightwing politics (tory tbh) and am anxious about what it means for Ireland and the North in particular as would not like to see a return to the bad old days.
In addition I have absolutely no confidence in the Tories as a negotiating party in getting a good deal (not sure they'd know one if it slapped them in the face)

[Absolute_Zero]

What principle? The principle that we already had a referendum, "WE lost, get over it"?

As per my mention of the Irish/Lisbon treaty rerun, I won't hold with that sort of thing... as far as my tiny contribution to democracy goes.

[Dio]

So: "Probably worse off in the short term, maybe worse off in the long term, but on the principle they shouldn't be allowed to ask again and again I'll stick with it?" Bloody-mindedness it is then?

[Absolute_Zero]

I voted remain not because I thought that the EU was wonderful but because it has acted as a filter that could soften for the worst excesses of rightwing politics

Chances are that France will elect a Thatcherite President this year... hopefully <- rather than the not inconceivable Le Pen.

The most popular party in the Netherlands is led by Wilders-beast.

The Trajectory across Europe as a whole is to the extremes.

It would be a supreme irony of 'history teaches us that history teaches us nothing' if the institution designed to prevent a problem (that of its own accord wasn't going to happen) to nevertheless happen. 3rd time is the charm.

[Absolute_Zero]

So: "Probably worse off in the short term, maybe worse off in the long term, but on the principle they shouldn't be allowed to ask again and again I'll stick with it?" Bloody-mindedness it is then?

Not if it's a case of asking again and again until the "correct" result is obtained. How many upfront Euros is a democratic soul worth? And what is the long term cost? Especially when that precedent is subsequently used to obtain a result you profoundly disagree with... oh, too late.

[Harlequin]

So: "Probably worse off in the short term, maybe worse off in the long term, but on the principle they shouldn't be allowed to ask again and again I'll stick with it?" Bloody-mindedness it is then?

Not if it's a case of asking again and again until the "correct" result is obtained. How many upfront Euros is a democratic soul worth? And what is the long term cost? Especially when that precedent is subsequently used to obtain a result you profoundly disagree with... oh, too late.

There is no need to ask indefinitely. Only one referendum is needed in which people know what they are voting for (beyond Brexit being defined as Brexit), a clear threshold is set for a change to the status quo (I believe something like 66% is common for such matters) and the actions to be taken in the case of a change are set in the enabling law (as with previous non-EU referenda in this country) rather than said law being presented to MPs as merely consultative.

[Absolute_Zero]

So: "Probably worse off in the short term, maybe worse off in the long term, but on the principle they shouldn't be allowed to ask again and again I'll stick with it?" Bloody-mindedness it is then?

Not if it's a case of asking again and again until the "correct" result is obtained. How many upfront Euros is a democratic soul worth? And what is the long term cost? Especially when that precedent is subsequently used to obtain a result you profoundly disagree with... oh, too late.

There is no need to ask indefinitely.

Not when you're confident you'd get a better result next time. My hypothetical counter vote notwithstanding, you probably would.

Look, I'm generally happy to battle the bulk opinion... but this is almost certainly academic. The process is supposed to be a one-way street. If Article 50 is invoked [it surely will] and you believe in the possibility of a second referendum, then you'd best vote LD early and often. My prophecy, at the least, would appreciate the support.

[KlaxonCow]

Not when you're confident you'd get a better result next time.

Logically, I fail to see a problem in this.

If the Will of the People is fixed and determined, then asking them repeatedly will simply produce the same result.

If the result changes then this indicates an instability in the data. People changing their minds.

The People's Will is a dynamic entity. They are allowed to change their minds and this is a perfectly valid metric to determine that.

Indeed, were the logistics and expense not horribly impractical and a bit silly, there's a statistical argument that perhaps we ought to ask all referenda questions repeatedly over time. To allow opinions to settle in light of the emerging facts. To take the pulse of the fluctuations in opinion and possibly even statistical remove the error that they introduce.

If the purpose of a referendum is to accurately determine the Will of the People then a larger sample size, over time, would prove more mathematically accurate. I know you said "better result" in a mocking manner, where "better" means "the result you wanted", but a larger sample size is literally a mathematically more accurate - and, thus, objectively better - result. Without any bias to a particular outcome.

We don't do it because it'd be an inconvenient and expensive pain in the arse to repeat every referendum ten times in a row just to check that, indeed, we've got a settled and statistically significant result. Of course not, that's silly. But it's not at all logically nor mathematically wrong.

[zip accident]

Not when you're confident you'd get a better result next time.

Logically, I fail to see a problem in this.

Then you're not a politician.

The problem is that a politician might keep asking the question until they got the answer they wanted (say once out of a hundred tries), then not ask the question any more.

I thought brexit would be bad for the UK from the start, and I think that a lot of people now realise that, and some who were aware of that were "protest voting for the losers" (who didn't actually lose). Basically the brexit vote is what you get when tactical voting becomes the norm, people vote against things, not for things, and then complain that they didn't get what they wanted, even though they didn't vote for it.

I think that the signs are that brexit will be bad enough that remain would win on a second vote, but obviously I don't know so.

Absolute Zero's principle is a generally sound one, but in this case I don't think it's as important as the damage brexit would do.

[gumboot]

I think they should be made to ask the question over and over until they can ask a question that people actually understand.

[KlaxonCow]

Then you're not a politician.

Aww, shucks. You say the nicest things to me.

The problem is that a politician might keep asking the question until they got the answer they wanted (say once out of a hundred tries), then not ask the question any more.

Yeah, I got that. I was just being contrarian to force out some original thought against the grain of orthodoxy.

Basically the brexit vote is what you get when tactical voting becomes the norm, people vote against things, not for things, and then complain that they didn't get what they wanted, even though they didn't vote for it.

Absolute Zero's principle is a generally sound one

So you simultaneously acknowledge that tactical protest voting is a problem. But then endorse a "principle" that is basically just tactical protest voting.

Not voting for what you actually want to happen, but just voting against the Establishment to protest being asked repeatedly about it?

I surely don't need to point out that such "anti-establishment" protest voting is what's landed us here and with Trump in America, right?

Though I am impressed by the sheer bloody-mindedness of happily taking short term economic devastation against your own best interests, simply to give some "here today, gone tomorrow" arseholes a black eye. You have to admire such pure "fuck you" stubbornness.

[Dio]

So: "Probably worse off in the short term, maybe worse off in the long term, but on the principle they shouldn't be allowed to ask again and again I'll stick with it?" Bloody-mindedness it is then?

Not if it's a case of asking again and again until the "correct" result is obtained. How many upfront Euros is a democratic soul worth? And what is the long term cost? Especially when that precedent is subsequently used to obtain a result you profoundly disagree with... oh, too late.

If the question was perfectly asked, and won by a margin that puts clear water between the two camps, obviously I would agree with you. But because of the clusterfuck Cameron (deliberately) made by setting it up with a vague question, and because the difference between the for and against votes is a tiny sliver, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that a more specific poll on what people actually want from exit would be a good idea. Or, even better, whether they agree with what we get, since that probably won't be what many people want.

Of course, what is really necessary in a case where you get a 50/50 split is some kind of compromise, but given that there is no middle ground, how's that possible?

So under your vision of 'democracy', if at the next election a party campaigned on a Remain mandate and was returned as a government, would we still have to leave? What about if a final 'exit' proposal was polling at 30% approval?

[Absolute_Zero]

So under your vision of 'democracy', if at the next election a party campaigned on a Remain mandate and was returned as a government, would we still have to leave?

Of course, it's not a decision that can be unilaterally taken. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is set up so that the process, once-entered, is irrevocable. Dodgy CJEU fix notwithstanding. You can't just wing international treaties on [in]convenience and whim... we're fully signed up to treaties on treaties [Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties]. The "proper" way to obtain the desired result [beyond not invoking Art. 50] is to complete the process and then reapply under Article 49.

Please let Jeremy know what it is that he's insisting his MPs vote for.

[Little stoned kiwi]

If they held another referendum and the result was Remain, would another be needed to make it best out of three?

[gumboot]

Next referendum should simply be "Are you sure? [Y/N] "