When you have an impossible set of standards any length of time is insufficient.



This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 6 2019 03:10pm

It's clearly not politically feasible. The best option is probably a ranked choice referendum but I doubt that will ever happen.

Any second referendum would undeniably win with a strong majority for stay. The only reason the first referendum passed was because people felt safe voting to leave because 1) it was purposefully made to be non-binding and 2) the perceived chance of it passing was so low they didn't have to think about the consequences of passing

If that's the case, I say prove it.

"Let's stall leaving until people are so exhausted and have been so programmed to think the sky will fall when we leave, so then we can offer a second vote"

is a pretty egregious attack on real democracy. You don't get to repeat votes until you get the outcome you want. Honor the people's choice, it's simple.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Oct 6 2019 07:33pm

Whos stalling leaving? The party that resigned right after the successful vote and had no plans despite championing the cause? Boris Johnson whos failing to negotiate himself out of a paper bag?

The reason its taking so long is because pulling the trigger is business suicide and possibly also suicide for the UK since it has a decent chance of losing Scotland and Ireland.

Why don't you guys just leave it up to the people and have a referendum on the subject?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

..... oh, wait, they already did that and the elitists in power didn't like the results. Never mind, go back to shilling, Thor. Why not keep having referendums until you get the result you desire!

This post was edited by CarsV on Oct 6 2019 07:50pm

the problem is that you need more than 2 options in a referendum like this, since it is a simple fact that there are at least 3 options: hard/no deal brexit, soft/May-deal brexit, and Remain. this ternary choice was not given to the British people at the time, but it is the choice they have to make now. simply referring to the two-way referendum from 2016 is inadequate here.
to complicate things even further, even with ranked choice voting you might run into problematic or quirky outcomes.

say, with fictional numbers, that 35% of the voting population are for a hard brexit, 25% are for a soft brexit and 40% are for remain; and that the supporters of a soft brexit prefer a hard brexit over remain by a 2:1 split if they have to choose.

if you use instant runoff voting, the most common form of ranked choice voting around the world, then the two options "hard brexit" and "remain" would go on to the runoff. there, hard brexit would win with 51.67% of the votes, even though remain had plurality support and soft brexit would represent the preference of the median voter on this issue.




the tldr is that ranked choice voting would be a good insurance policy for those who prefer remain but fear that remain might attract slightly less than 50% of the votes on a second referendum - but once its share drops below 44ish percent, all kinds of unpredictable and suboptimal outcomes are in play.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 6 2019 07:57pm

And where does it say in the law that they have to follow the referendum? How about if you care about democracy you enforce what is passed, meaning if your referendum is specifically made to be non-binding you enforce it as non-binding