On consideration, a second Brexit referendum would only compound the problems of the first and fatigue might ensure low turnout or differential turnout to a degree that would invalidate it.
What, though, of the question of a second referendum which followed a Mueller-style investigation (can anybody seriously by now doubt one will be necessary to repair British democracy once Mueller publishes everything relating to Brexit, Arron Banks, Cambridge Analytica, Farage etc etc., retrospectively changing whatever has happened in the interrim)?
@krozruch It’s not like the Mueller investigation will reveal anything new regarding the collective loss of trust in institutions. People will feel swindled, yes, but the political malaise enabling those people to pull off Brexit already existed. It’s like hoping that indicting an arsonist will help rebuilding a wooden house. Putting this much trust in “revelations” is missing the point, and I honestly doubt that a specific turn of events can repair structural shortcomings and disappointment.
@magisterludi It may do something to make more people see what is already known. Trump is a big story and it all ties together. I was arguing against a 2nd referendum, though - I am not sold on it precisely because I am aware of how much damage has already been done. My point is that if a 2nd referendum could be seen as legitimate it would probably require a more substantive change in information penetration than we see now. Honestly, I don't put that much trust in any solution right now.
Not sure about that. With things so close both sides would be motivated to turnout. There has been non-stop media coverage and certain groups who didn't vote last time might make extra efforts the next time.
That said, I'm pretty certain another EU referendum won't happen.
@fitheach Yes, we'll probably never find out. Far from a prediction that one - they'll avoid it if they can. I just think there remain concerns in terms of a second referendum. What is needed is clarity and a handful of percentage points either way won't deliver that.
Sometimes the population are evenly split and a few votes is enough to make the decision. That is democracy.
However, if there is a near even split, as per the EU ref, it is wrong to say we must go for the hardest possible Brexit because otherwise it wouldn't be Brexit. That is plain wrong. There should be a compromise position.
Notice should also be taken if people have changed their minds. However, polling suggests this hasn't happened.
@fitheach I am clear there is no mandate for a hard Brexit. It's just that neither am I convinced of the arguments of the randoms who keep jumping up in my in-box telling me I need to march (in London) for a 2nd referendum. I'm clear a referendum is a bad idea for such a complicated issue but repeating it doesn't provide the long-term legitimacy needed. Somebody employed to make decisions and lead needs to make a decision and lead, it seems to me.
This Maston instance is dedicated to all people interested in a united Europe, a post-national and truly democratic Europe.
But even if you are not so interested in European politics, you are welcome.
Hosting: Germany, Uptime: https://stats.uptimerobot.com/v8KKlhJ2E
Diese Mastodon-Instanz ist für alle, die interessiert sind an einem vereinten Europa, einem post-nationalen und wirklich demokratischen Europa.
Aber auch wenn Du Dich nicht so sehr für Europaplitik interessierst, bist Du herzlich willkommen.
Hosting: Deutschland, Verfügbarkeit: https://stats.uptimerobot.com/v8KKlhJ2E