Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Almost, but not quite. Once you acknowledge that one referendum is indecisive, all that follow it become indecisive. You call a second one, it delivers a contrary result, and where are you? A score draw, and the demands for a replay begin.
The political declarations made prior to the 2016 referendum stated that the Government would deliver on the result. I think - I hope - we are all politically mature enough to understand that delivering a simple majority on a binary question then leaves the government a great deal of latitude over exactly what constitutes ‘delivery’. I think we all understood that we were leaving the details to the government, and the demands for a second referendum simply don’t work as an appeal to a sort of Swiss political tradition of holding referendums on the minutiae of every question, no matter how earnestly they are dressed up as such. They are simply an attempt to win an argument already lost.
|
I am not sure if I am allowed to refute these points but here goes.
Your first sentence implies these two events are similar and comparable. The first was based on aspiration and misinformation, the second would be be based on fact-based, real world conclusions. Actual solutions in the real world with real, information-based consequences.
Your second point is breathtaking in its contradiction. In the context of a decision that changes 40+ years of macro structural & social policy, the words "politically mature" would never coexist with the term "simple majority on a binary question". Granted, this is the outcome you prefer but please don't try and wrap it up in pretence of legitimacy.