And as everyone knows it is a challenge to reason people out of views that they were not reasoned into.
However, I have some quibbles with the rest.
The first is that the June 23 referendum was not a democratically binding decision on EU membership. It was held under the terms of the (poorly drafted) 2015 Referendum Act as an explicitly advisory referendum – a test of opinion – only. The fact that a number of MPs regard the decision as binding is astonishing for a number of reasons, but the first of them is that not only was the exercise intended as advisory,
Technically true but it was never presented as advisory; it was well-understood that the result would be followed. Now, this was incredibly stupid, because (among other things) as the article rightly goes on to describe, the question
I still favour the "let's just not do this, it was a shitty decision" approach. However, if needs must, then I like Blair's attitude to a second referendum : asking whether we still want to go through with it when we know for real exactly what we're getting is sufficiently different that it wouldn't undermine the results of the first. "Yes, we want to leave.". Two years later : "Actually, naaah." Nothing undemocratic about that by anyone's standards.
Second, MPs and the decisions they reach are recallable. This is of the essence of democracy. It is this that constitutes the electorate’s continuing control of the democratic process. At the next election, if an MP has not done well in the eyes of his or her constituents, or if the government has not done well in the eyes of a plurality of the electorate, they can be replaced at the ballot box. They have given explicit undertakings on policy and legislation, and can be held to account for the outcomes. Elections are held periodically, at no greater interval than five years. The time frame and the recall principle are essential to the democratic process.
Yes, but MPs (except the Lib Dems) kept saying that they'd follow the result. So they wouldn't be good representatives if they suddenly changed their minds. And while the un-election option is fine in principle, in practise, who else do you actually have to vote for ? There just aren't that many serious political parties fielding plausible candidates in every constituency.
The voting age should have been 16,
I still favour some kind of test to determine if people actually understand what the hell they're voting on.
Originally shared by Chris Blackmore (The Walrus)
What Professor Grayling says is absolutely true; we cannot stop demanding #Brexit be stopped, because it is just not legal.
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/culture/a-c-grayling-s-five-reasons-why-the-uk-must-ignore-vote-1-4668860
"Technically true but it was never presented as advisory; it was well-understood that the result would be followed."
ReplyDeleteNot so. Tired of presenting the evidence over and over.
It is so. From June 14 2016 :
ReplyDeletehttp://uk.businessinsider.com/green-eu-referendum-not-legally-binding-brexit-2016-6
I, for one, didn't hear any mention of it not being legally binding until then. And it's not as though I wasn't paying attention.
Photo below is a screen grab of part of Commons Briefing Paper CBP-7212 issued to all MPs prior to the vote on the Referendum Act. You could download the whole of the briefing here http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-7212.pdf if you still don't believe me.
ReplyDeleteNow, I'm really, really tired. Absence of evidence wasn't evidence of absence, yet again. :)
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/aMppX1uy-WNgDmrlBwFTsI7kuj1MbYYonKNsxIjGo5mn3T_bHGf0TTQICZVaqZw0cdHnyfub7oyXQ0A=s0
That's a legal document. It is not how the referendum was presented to voters in the campaign. Time and time again politicians insisted they'd abide by the result of the vote. As the BI article states, the fact that it was legally only advisory barely got a mention until the last week or so of the campaign when it looked like Leave would win - and even then that was only by left-leaning sites on the internet, and not at all by campaigners.
ReplyDeleteFind me three instances of prominent campaigners saying to a large audience (e.g. national media) that the referendum was advisory, prior to the BI article, and I'll change my tune. Not politicians talking to other politicians, because that ain't campaigning.
Rhys Taylor Sorry, I thought you were talking about the actual legal situation, not the awful advertising campaigns we were subjected to by both sides.I tend not to take any notice of the promises of politicians, and I've never ever noticed Cameron keeping one. In fact the last promise I really remember was Blair promising to reduce cancer operation waiting times, for which I was rather grateful, because he did, and I'm still here.
ReplyDeleteChris Blackmore Oh, there's no doubt at all that politicians knew it was advisory. They've just chosen to present it to the electorate as binding for a whole host of equally stupid reasons.
ReplyDeleteSo far as I can tell, just about the only Tory promises that they keep are the really stupid ones, like austerity. Oh, and then there's little ultra-ironic doozy :
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RhysTaylorRhysy/posts/C7Cxz8jBVZX