Do Voters Back the Possibility of Leaving without a Deal?

52 thoughts on “Do Voters Back the Possibility of Leaving without a Deal?”

1. @Kirk

   Religion (of any sort) is completely irrelevant to my point about an individual’s human instinct and intellect – as religion is a form of mental conditioning, that may not always be good, as described in your Aztech example.

   To quickly answer your question: “Is the price worth paying?” The answer for me is definitely no, and I could probably make 20-30 different arguments to justify that answer, but my main one is that the UK as the world’s 5th largest economy with a mere 66million people is probably of optimal size, power, prosperity, and is in no way enhanced by divesting our democratic atomicity into a mismatched adhoc bloc of countries where 19 of the smallest 27 bloc nations need combined to equal our GDP.
   Even putting aside the dangerous and ridiculously concentration of power held by the EU because of the collective population size and country count. The lack of a universal language commonly used by most citizens of the 28 bloc nations is a massive obstacle that ensures the EU political operators can do whatever they collectively want because there is never one unified concerting voice of the EU population that can be coordinated to effectively be able to hold them to account when the power is abstracted through multiple mechanism in domestic and EU party politics from the population. Like the American political system I would described them as super-disenfranchised.

   As for super-majorities, they are and always will be nonsense IMO by virtue of the existential question: what should the threshold be if not simply more than half ? 57.3673% good enough?Super-majorities are a huge corruption of power and democracy and despite the ones you described for the EU being safeguards, they are a fudge because there is too much power in the hands of too few – which is the real problem to fix.. I mean, any monument depicting a balance of power uses scales, and scales tip by 1 delta on either side, just like a titration completes on a single drop. But I’m now starting to think they are the lesser of two evils in super-disenfranchised democracies.

   Your mention of deferring to experts for the EU referendum if taken to full completion would surely result in the loss of all liberty when consulting so-called experts for everything ? And by that logic it would have stopped us joining the complex Common Market proposition to begin with. I agree with your point about medicine, but only because medicine is one of a small percentage of careers you now (but didn’t 150years ago) legally need to be licensed for, because of the background knowledge and training needed,. But that still doesn’t stop millions of people correctly determining when to use paracetamol or how much insulin to take without consulting a doctor for each injection – despite the complexity of the human body.

   Coming from a computing background, IMO the EU(and US) is like a really inefficient designed system, that by sheer virtue of overburdening size can’t possibly fit/match the variety of problems it needs to solve and invariable doesn’t do anything exceptionally well. This is a fundamental flaw of them wanting to have one unified political super parliament for Europe for Economic trade negotiation reasons, when the real solution is probably to partition the problem and have 4 separate EU parliaments and currencies, 3 parliaments with 7 countries and 1 with 6, but that’s just my two pence of what I hope they do when we make a success of leaving.Report

2. You are incorrect about evolution, the human brain is natures most advanced adaptation machine, that is both it’s greatest strength and it’s greatest weakness. It is a weakness because the brain will adapt relatively quickly in order to survive, but what if it adapts to information that is available but not factual, for hundred’s of years the Aztec population sacrificed thousands of people because they believed that the sun would not rise if they did not, if you think that the brain protects us from false information through complex filtering you are wrong. The Aztec people were not stupid, their architecture proves as much, that didn’t stop them from believing in stupid and false ideas.

   Sure we learn from mistakes, have we not already learned that the referendum was a mistake that the choices presented to us were false, the leave side argued that everything would be amazing, the remain side argued that it would be a disaster, neither side actually looked to the reality. The remain side are culpable especially for not conducting a positive campaign focusing on the benefits of EU membership or that a federal EU isn’t actually a bad idea if done right; just as when Athelstan united the the Saxon Kingdoms in the 10th Century. If we’re talking about Human development, larger and more complex societal organisation has benefited us.The EU is not perfect, neither was Britain in 1707. In the end is the price worth paying? sticking to a choice that is already proving to be a mistake even without even needing to see it through? Is shackling of our state to the USA, the dissolution of the Union and an economic down-turn worth seeing through because we’re too stubborn to accept it as one? On the other hand if we don’t go through with it the cankerous feelings of those that voted to leave and were true believers, ideological zealots and willing followers could lead to long term unrest. It is a situation where in reality we have all already lost. There is no solution that will heal the division created in this kingdom. Therefore there is no fixing the problem in the decades to come, we will never be able to get back to the existing pre-referendum relationship with the EU, if we left and then tried to rejoin we would not regain our position within the bloc.

   The USA constitution makes it quite clear as to why super-majorities are required, they are not arbitrary and the purpose is to protect minorities from the the tyranny of the majority when it comes to important decisions that alter the life of all the citizens both born and unborn. Had the Weimar Republic had the protection of super-majorities for it’s own constitution the NSDAP would have had a much harder time of altering the constitutional framework of Germany in the 1930’s.

   In closing the reality is we are not experts on our relationship with the EU, in any other situation requiring expert opinion we would defer to the experts, if your doctor told you that your child requires inoculation you would accept that advice without question… unless of course you believe in the false information spread around about the MMR. Is it not the same case here? We we’re lied to, we were told the EU is bad for us (yet on a daily basis how does the EU harm you as an individual? How much do you gain from being part of it?) when the factual reality is otherwise. This has nothing to do with sovereignty, our sovereignty is better protected in the EU than it is outside where we as a small nation are prey to the imposition of unequal relationships that denude our sovereignty far more than the status-quo where we are a important rule-maker within a super-bloc whose direction is ironically driven by the foreign secretaries and the executives of the leading nations and not the Parliament or Commission.

   Additionally the Council also has super-majority and unanimous voting rules, for example many decisions require a 55% majority that represents 65% of the EU population and for sensitive votes on foreign policy or taxation a unanimous majority is required. I’m sure you can see why this protects the people rather than keeping power from them. As for the USA not being a poster boy for democracy you are correct the perception that the USA is founded on principles of liberty is incorrect, the USA came to be because the elites in the USA convinced the common people for their own benefit to break with the UK, much the same as the elite faction that is closely tied to US interests in the UK convinced people to leave the EU for their own benefit. Thinkers like Jefferson eventually in their later years feared how the country would develop, other thinkers like Thomas Paine were ostracised because their principles threatened the position of the power brokers in the the USA. All of that however does not mean that the principles are wrong, just that the principles where used as a veneer to cover the true intentions of the elite classes, it has ever been this way in all democracies. What I am arguing for is that people take those principles on and believe them even if their governments do not. Report

3. @Kirk

   I find it hard to believe you actually believe that, as it just read like a way of moving the goalposts to make it sound like Remain really won.

   However, to counter your points. Humans, before they rose above their lesser animal kingdom rivals lived entirely on instinct, a key survival trait that leads to confident actions being taken, despite being driven from adhoc exposure to information and misinformation that gets complexly filtered to allow a species to optimize their ability to survive.

   The idea, that in the thousands of years that have past since then – while humanity has become civilized – that we(humanity) can’t handle trivial information and misinformation about politics to instinctively reason what is best for us, is somewhat insulting to the magnificence of human intellect IMHO. You are also suggesting that in a democracy we should always be making the right choice – first time every time – when mankind can only truly advance when it makes the right choice through experience gained from understanding the wrong choices, whether we understood the referendum doesn’t really matter, and if it is the wrong choice we can seek to fix it in the decades to come.

   Then to tackle the absurd assertion that we should need existentially arbitrary super-majorities to make democratic political and constitutional changes is just a thinly veiled way of keeping power from the people – giving those that wield influence and power protection and insurance against unforeseen change. Allowing them time to move influence to stop the people ever reaching the super-majority threshold for positive change. You only need look at the example you gave to realise – unlike the UK – it is hardly the poster boy for a good democracy we would wish to copy.Report

4. And tell me do you understand the structure, history, constitution and legal underpinnings of the EU? Do you understand in any real detail the UK constitution? Have you read Stubbs?, Blackstone?, The truth is it is a general problem in ‘Democratic societies’ all of them are fundamentally structurally weak because the electorate has no political education and really our system of government should be correctly defined as ‘pseudo-democratic’. Think about the information-sphere in which we make our voting decisions it’s filled with lies, half-truths, soundbites and straight-cut propaganda.

   With regards to the referendum a question that is a simple binary choice can be formulated:

   “Are you in favour of Clause 1”
   “Are you in favour of Clause 2”

   Which one would you vote for? “Clause (n)” is a signifier, you are ignorant of the thing it signifies
   because I have not told you what it signifies, I could tell you it signifies cheese when it actually signifies milk but as I am your only source of knowledge on the matter you are guided towards that belief. How does making a choice between two little understood options qualify as democratically legitimate?

   And it must be made clear that the choices were and even after 3 years still are little understood. It is a fallacy to argue that a referendum is democratic because we invoke the voting mechanism, the mechanism does not qualify legitimacy.

   Additionally can a vote without a qualified majority on a constitutionally important issue ever be legitimate. Let it be made clear that a decision that fundamentally affects the way of life of 100 people cannot be made by 52 of the people at the expense of 48 of the people because such a fundamentally life altering choice is would be it’s nature result in a fundamentally fractured society with what is in effect two almost equally opposing positions, this is exactly why we are in the position we are in if it 75% : 25% the issue would easier to resolve. 52% is not a significant enough majority to even when the electorate is fully informed to legitimise a constitutionally significant change to the law. For example in the United States in order to change or amend the constitution 2/3rd’s of the federal legislature and 2/3rd’s of the individual states legislatures, this guarantees a broad consensus on important changes. What we have in our situation is the slither of a majority enforcing it’s will on slightly less of the population and that is a recipe for civil unrest and division lasting decade, in earlier times when people were not so docile it would have lead to civil war.

   Report

5. Really then those who claim they didn’t understand what they were voting for should have stayed at home. It was clear in or out and out meant out. The vote didn’t go the way I wanted it to but It was made very clear several times! and I accept the way people voted as a true democrat not a pretend one when it doesn’t go my way.
   Report

6. The 2016 referendum was undemocratic in the first place as people did not have the required level of knowledge to make an informed choice, this goes for both those who voted to leave and those who voted to remain. This was exacerbated by the press and political classes who chose to use propaganda and false information as means to guide people into voting choices. We currently do not even teach politics let alone EU structure at KS3 or GCSE how can ‘the people’ who have grown up with little to no political education possibly be asked to make choices of this magnitude based on nothing more than emotive soundbites and propaganda? This goes for voting in general in this country not just in the referendum. As John Adams made clear two centuries ago, ‘one cannot vote on a thing without scrupulous knowledge of a thing’.

   Revocation is the only legitimate option but just as everything else in this sordid affair it will not be understood by a public who have been so hopelessly led astray by all sides of the political spectrum.

   (Spelling corrected, apologies)Report

7. The 2016 referendum was undemocratic in the first place as people did not have the required level of knowledge to make an informed choice, this goes for both those who voted to leave and those who voted to remain. This was exacerbated by the press and political classes who chose to use propaganda and false information as means to guide people into voting choices. We currently do no even teach Politics let along EU structure at KS3 or GCSE how can the people who have grown up with little to no political education possibly be asked to make choices of this magnitude based on nothing more than emotive soundbites and propaganda? This goes for voting in general in this country not just in the referendum. As John Adams made clear two centuries ago, ‘one cannot vote on a thing without scrupulous knowledge of a thing’.

   Revocation is the own legitimate option but just as everything else in this sordid affair it will not be understood by a public who have been so hopelessly led astray by all sides of the political spectrum.Report

8. I am a British citizen and have lived in Spain for the past 16 years and obviously we would have preferred to remain. However, I am first and foremost a democratic and I strongly believe in the peoples vote. The referendum took place and the majority how ever small it may have been voted to leave, not with a deal but to leave completely, it was clear so after the debacle over the last 3 yrs thanks to Theresa Mays terrible deal which no one can agree on and the stubbornness of the EU to compromise at all. I hope Boris gets us out as soon as possible without a deal and do what the voters asked for. Report

9. Dennis :
   Now how do you know that there is a huge majority to end Brexit?

   By looking elsewhere on this site. Not huge (53%), but larger than the majority for Brexit in 2006, and very consistent. I can see no reason why Boris Johnson is avoiding a straight referendum on his proposals before the 31st Oct deadline – apart from the obvious explanation that he doubts whether the majority back him.Report

10. Now how do you know that there is a huge majority to end Brexit?
    How does anyone know what voters knew when we voted.

    The article I remind everyone about above is clear cut and straight forward.
    Cameron confirmed, no second referendum, our decision, it’s serious and will not be decided by politicians, just us,

    THAT was what we voted on, the prime ministers words and promises.

    From the very moment the leave vote was confirmed we are told the plebs didn’t know.

    What we do know is that it was a majority. In a democracy it should be 50% +1
    Destroy that democracy and the consequences run much deeper than the cost of leaving, much much deeper!

    If the vote is ignored millions will never vote again, that could and will mean that a government would be elected by as little as 20% of the public.
    That leaves the door wide open to extremists and populists.

    If you want a second vote, that will bring the whole issue round in circles again, especially if it’s close ( it should count if it’s close was the remainers argument )
    “One each” is another argument, final say is yet another argument.
    Why wasnt the first a final say?

    If you want a second vote, that’s fine, but only after the first vote is carried out.

    That way we will know if we have made a mistake, we will go back in ( if voted on ) on our terms, not the very likely dictator terms if we fail to leave now.
    Report

11. What is not said in this article is there is a huge majority to end Brexit amongst both Leave and Remain. The division is between their belief as to which option would end the issue quickest and allow us all to move on. Sadly the Media ( and John C) are not addressing the voters’ understanding of that. e.g. Few leavers recognise that if we leave without a deal, we will not have to revisit all May’s detail negotiations with the EU but will have to start the same with all their Trade Partners with whom we will no longer a Trade Deal. None will need to give us as favourable terms as our market is much smaller the EU.Report

12. The reminders have no argument.

    They tell us time and time again that we did not know what we voted for.

    David Cameron now says the boris is a liar.

    Here is his Chatham house speech me month before the vote

    “It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave.

    “Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’, not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide.

    “At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.

    “So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say think again.Report

13. Theres only one cure to Brexit and all our other political problems and that’s a modern day guy fawkes….Report

14. None of this will matter if Corbyn gets in to power as we wont need a referendum as everyone will leave England Report

15. From what I can tell, it is just standard contract law, it is illegal to enter someone into a contract without their explicit consent iirc, so in the absence of an active contract/treaty – because treaties are being revoked with A50 – the default fall back position is no contract, and on world trade a country without a trade deal with another country does so on WTO terms. I believe Solicitor and Conservative MP Bill Cash has explained this a few times over the last few years on the topic of Brexit.Report

16. Does anyone know this answer to this one?

    We have been told that, in the absence of a deal, the default position is that the UK would leave without a deal on the date fixed by agreement with the EU (currently the 31st Oct). But where does the idea that the default is No Deal come from?

    I’ve tried looking at the previsions of article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, and not seen anything about this.

    This raises the possibility that, even if the default position of the UK government is No Deal, it might be possible to change this.

    Indeed, for me, it would actually seem to me to be normal to have a position where a date for leaving can be fixed, but where the mechanism is only effective if a deal has been reached. In that case, remain would be the default position, not no deal.

    If the No Deal default for article 50 is hidden somewhere in the treaty, then so be it. It is almost certainly not possible to change the Lisbon Treaty before the end of October.

    But it seems to me to be perfectly possible that there is no such default and that the idea of No Deal being the default was simply the reading of the situation by the UK government. If so, it might be possible for Parliament to change this when it reconvenes on the 14th October. They could even vote a change in the law to make the default position remain – unless Boris Johnson either gets a deal through parliament, or gets no-deal through parliament. Very similar to the law that got royal assent yesterday.

    I note that, if there was nothing in the EU rules about No-deal being the default position when article 50 is triggered, EU politicians may have decided to keep quiet about it to avoid antagonising the Brexiteers in the UK.

    Report

17. I voted to Remain, but I accept that although a very small majority voted to Leave this outcome should be respected. However, I think that some of those who voted to Leave would not have done so if they had fully realised that leaving without a deal was going to be the a very likely outcome. I am fully behind leaving with a deal as I think that this would safeguard jobs and the economy. Report

18. Torrance: “Paul I do not accept that a Remain win in the referendum would not have been challenged. Farage in fact challenged what he thought was a narrow Remain win on the night.”

    I agree with your point, but I was actually meaning politically challenged, in the way Remain have politically disrupted us following the directive of the referendum for the last three years.

    David Cameron was still the PM back then and he would have snatched the win IMHO, Parliament was(and still is) pro-remain and they wouldn’t have entertained further discussion about such a contentious issue, having put it to bed. The ERG would have had the means to bring down their government, and possibly join Farage’s UKIP for a general election, but that wouldn’t have been realistic when they had no majority influence in Government and no majority influence with the public vote result.

    The media, the polling companies, city/big business(that facilitate poor wealth distribution), and the majority of lobbyists were (and are) all against Brexit. With Farage having no political presence in Parliament – either as an individual or party – I doubt the story would have even lasted a month, unless the ERG had acted irrationally.Report

19. Paul I do not accept accept that a Remain win in the referendum would not have been challenged. Farage In fact challenged what he thought was a narrow Remain win on the night. ButI yes I agree with you a Remain win would not have resulted in the drawn out constitutional problems of the past three years.,However that has nothing to do with Remoaner conspiracies but with the dramatic, difficult and radical nature of breaking up a trade deal. Staying in presented not problems at all in the. Immediate future .Report

20. Simon Thorpe: “I find it odd that people insist on claiming that a vote that took place over three years ago should be the best test of what the British public actually want today”

    I think you are sincere in saying you are a democrat, however I think if you re-examine how our democracy works in giving a Government Executive control for the duration of a parliament – regardless of what the changing wind of what the people want – year by year, month by month, week by week or day by day in polls – over that parliament duration has no bearing on what the Executive have a legitimate mandate to carry out at any time. And to that point, all the polls that this website analyse are merely a theoretical commentary of public opinion.

    I mean, Tony Blair (of Open Britain, now) that ignored 1 million people marching in London to stop the Iraq war, still had an Executive mandate for his Government, the safety and balance is supposed to be, that enough MPs in the house are good people, and that they would bring down a bad Government in such circumstances. Obviously, the current Government don’t have the confidence of the house and a new Government or mandate needs to be sought – immediately – but the people that sit on your side of the argument (and Tony Blair’s) don’t want to follow the constitution. I would agree that you are a democrat and can still hold your previously stated views on more referendums, if you think our constitution needs changed, to change the existential question of: how frequently does the Government need to get a mandate?

    Looking at it from the opposite side, and I’m seeing a lot of double democracy standards. Had Remain won the referendum by even a single vote, do you think leave voters would have been allowed to have resisted the result for these last 3 years, and cause this type of political disruption? Everyone keeps saying ‘no-deal’ wasn’t on the table, but then neither was the EU as it is today in the joining the Common Market referendum. And the Executive of her Majesty Governments have given the people zero referendums on the further integration from Common Market to EU in that time – despite being a Tony Blair manifesto pledge iirc. Euro-sceptics in Great Britain have needed to wait 40years to get a single referendum, and yet Remain think they can get another in just 3years after the date. Had Remain won they would have marched forward with further integrations of an EU wide police force, etc, and they certainly doubt they would have been asking us what we thought – based on previous form.Report

21. If you believe the EU is democratic we must stay.If you believe it is undemocratic we must leave.I suggest reading Tony Benns comments._If we dont select them,and we cannot get rid of them we do not want them_.These words are still true,The arguments being put forward are based on money.If that is so good why are the people of Hong Kong protesting?After all they are part of the biggest market in the world.Report

22. I find it odd that people insist on claiming that a vote that took place over three years ago should be the best test of what the British public actually want today.

    The fact is that you only have to look elsewhere on this site to see that the Poll of Polls has systematically come out in favour of remain for at least 18 months. Currently, it stands at 53% Remain, 47% Leave. https://www.whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/euref2-poll-of-polls-2/

    Indeed, things can change in the space of 3 years. 3 years ago, the Front National in France, led by Marine LePen, was pushing for a Frexit. Not anymore. The reason is that, with the rise of nationalism in many European Countries, it is becoming increasingly clear that the face of the European Union is changing – partly as a result of the Brexit vote. I am unaware of other parties in European Union countries that are still actively pushing for leaving the Union (correct me if I am wrong). As I say, things have changed.

    Furthermore, there are millions of young people in the UK who are now eligeable to vote, and who may not think like their elders. Why are they not allowed to have their say? Add to that the fact that it is clear that the leave vote is particularly strong amongst people who are relatively elderly. As a consequence, the ratio between leavers and remainers is likely to change over time. Can we say how much? No, not without a proper test.

    I’m sorry, I see no problem whatsoever with calling a second referendum now to obtain a clear and unambiguous decision about what the UK’s voters really want.

    I’m happy to admit that I am personally opposed to a No-deal brexit. But I can assure you that if Boris Johnson did call for a referendum and obtained a majority in favour of a No-deal Brexit, then that would be it. I am totally committed to the importance of living in a democracy. Johnson would be absolutely justified in taking the UK out of Europe on the 31st October. And no amount protesting from MPs could overturn that.Report

23. There are some sensible comments but unfortunately we have three parties are denying democracy which are Lib Dem’s Labour and SNP we had a democratic vote and these parties are going against the will of the people they are the ones breaking i the law and Corbyn should be very afraid of the result as in every poll he is the most unpopular man. Even with the trouble Johnson has been in he is streets ahead of Corbyn in popularity..
    This is why Corbyn won’t call for an election he knows what he’s done and that he is a traitor his manifesto in 2017 he promised we would leave he is a turncoat.
    The final thing is the electorate don’t like his style of government which they obviously know would bring this country to its knees within a year. Dont speak about democracy when this parliament has ignored voters revenge could be sweet in the next election many of these mps will be voted out as being not fit for purpose Report

24. On yesterday’s “Any Answers” on BBC Radio 4, it was clear that a clear majority of people phoning in were of the view that Boris Johnson was right to stick to his guns. It was suggested that he could well consider that going to prison for contempt of parliament was a price worth paying to get a No-deal Brexit. Now, I have sufficient faith in the BBC to believe that their selection was an unbiased sample of the people phoning in. I tried phoning in, but it was clear that the phone lines were jammed.

    Now, the question I ask is whether we are seeing the same phenomenon of targetting selected populations that was almost certainly a part of the surprise Brexit vote in 2016. I understand that 1.5 billion ads were sent in the last four days of the campaign to a group of 7 million people who were “persuadable”. I have also just watched the documentary on Netflix (“The Great Hack”) that explains how Cambridge Analytica was involved in manipulating dozens of elections across the world over a period of 15 years, even before their involvement in Trump’s victory that was clearly a result of targetting “persuadable” people in the few critical swing states.

    For yesterday’s Any Answers, it is possible that there was a Facebook campaign to encouraging No-deal supporters to all phone in? It would be interesting to know if this was the case.

    Now, it may be that Cambridge Analytica was not directly involved in swinging the Brexit referendum, but their methods were certainly well known to Dominic Cummings who ran the campaign. And he is now heavilly involved in strategy at N° 10.

    I think that there is every reason to believe that there are a number of devious tricks that could be used to get a No-deal brexit by default on the 31st October – even if the bill gets royal assent on Monday. These might include having the PM in prison during the critical days before the final date.

    That is why I am absolutely convinced that the only sensible and fair way out of the impasse is to have a Yes/No referendum on the question of a No-deal Brexit on the 31st October. That vote could be done rapidly – at the beginning of October, for example.

    Now, it’s perfectly possible that there would still be the sort of selective ad campaigns used so succesfully by Cambridge Analytica to boost the yes vote, but at least this time, people would be much more aware of the risks. It would be a lot harder to do it again, like they did in 2016.

    I have yet to hear a single reasonable argument why this simple people’s vote on No-deal should not be the preferred solution. Paul says that he would prefer the question to be “Do you wish to leave the EU, with or without a deal on the 31st October 2019?”. But that is ambiguous because it means that two separate options can not be separated. If Boris Johnson actually has a proposal for a deal, then that can be proposed as well – but he clearly doesn’t, and there is little evidence that the government is actually trying to get a revised deal.Report

25. We were asked if we wished to Leave or stay in the EU there was nothing about leaving with a deal it was a straight question leave or remain Report

Comments are closed.