The real message of Brexit (IMO)

[citizen k]

... on a national level, the mass public shouldn't decide major political issues. they lack the experience and skill to decide correctly

Those that have the experience and skill don't decide correctly either.   

[The Larch]

Referenda work *just fine* in Switzerland, where the populace is educated on the issues and has deep experience with handling major political decisions.

That's why you vote on banning the construction of minarets and on restricting inmigration by going against signed treaties with the EU? Don't pretend that your knees don't jerk as well.

[The Brain]

Referenda work *just fine* in Switzerland, where the populace is educated on the issues and has deep experience with handling major political decisions.

That's why you vote on banning the construction of minarets and on restricting inmigration by going against signed treaties with the EU? Don't pretend that your knees don't jerk as well.

These had effects that were way beyond what the voters actually wanted? Or do you just disagree with the voters on the issues?

[Legbiter]

Remain mistakenly ran a campaign on economic efficiency instead of emotion and realized it's error far too late. Well, to be fair they did that clip with Gordon Brown in the ruins of Coventry Cathedral that hit the right tone but it was too late by then. Emotion beats reason as a tool of persuasion.

We rationalize our emotional response after the fact. 

[crazy canuck]

If the outcome has an objective sensible outcome, why bother with the expense and risk of a referendum?

I'm not interested in playing the Yi game.

Ok, but if you ever have an answer to the question I would be interested in hearing it.

[Berkut]

Makes sense to me to have a referendum on huge fundamental issues like being in the EU or not. I would have thought it highly inappropraite if Sweden hadn't had a referendum before we joined the EU.

If the issue was "Should we join the EU or not" I would agree.

Leaving once joining is a vastly more complex question, and not one that lends itself to binary answers. The reality is that any informed answer for "leave" is almost certainly going to be of the form "Yes, leave, as long as..." which of course does not lend itself to a referendum at all.

As for complexity, this Brexit referendum had a very simple question, very easy to understand. The issue was perfect for a yes/no answer. The short term consequences (business as usual with a Remain, huge hit to the economy and huge uncertainties with a Leave) were well known, and whatever Bregret there is seems to be tied to the short term consequences.

The simplicity of the question hides the complexity of the issue.

Also, it is kind of stupid to have a "leave" vote be susceptible to a simple majority anyway. It should take a much greater weight to dissolve a complex union.

I would certainly not agree that a state should be allowed to leave the USA on a simple majority vote, for example. Or that we should modify the Constitution by a simple majority.

There are reasons we don't all just use simple democracy rather than representative republics.

[Admiral Yi]

The complexity of join and leave seem pretty comparable to me.

[crazy canuck]

The complexity of join and leave seem pretty comparable to me.

Depends on whether the conditions for joining are already predetermined.  Which iirc they are.  In those circumstances the question is less complex because most of the variables are known.  But with the leave vote there are numerous unknowns and a departure whose conditions needs to be negotiated.   The kind of complexity which escapes the average voter it seems.

[The Brain]

Makes sense to me to have a referendum on huge fundamental issues like being in the EU or not. I would have thought it highly inappropraite if Sweden hadn't had a referendum before we joined the EU.

If the issue was "Should we join the EU or not" I would agree.

Leaving once joining is a vastly more complex question, and not one that lends itself to binary answers. The reality is that any informed answer for "leave" is almost certainly going to be of the form "Yes, leave, as long as..." which of course does not lend itself to a referendum at all.

As for complexity, this Brexit referendum had a very simple question, very easy to understand. The issue was perfect for a yes/no answer. The short term consequences (business as usual with a Remain, huge hit to the economy and huge uncertainties with a Leave) were well known, and whatever Bregret there is seems to be tied to the short term consequences.

The simplicity of the question hides the complexity of the issue.

Also, it is kind of stupid to have a "leave" vote be susceptible to a simple majority anyway. It should take a much greater weight to dissolve a complex union.

I would certainly not agree that a state should be allowed to leave the USA on a simple majority vote, for example. Or that we should modify the Constitution by a simple majority.

There are reasons we don't all just use simple democracy rather than representative republics.

I don't see a fundamental difference between join and leave.

Neither Sweden nor the UK uses a simple majority referendum to decide whether to join or leave the EU. In both cases the referendum was non-binding. Parliament/Riksdag deciding on this kind of issue without having an explicit OK from the people seems unhealthy to me.

[Sheilbh]

Makes sense to me to have a referendum on huge fundamental issues like being in the EU or not. I would have thought it highly inappropraite if Sweden hadn't had a referendum before we joined the EU.

If the issue was "Should we join the EU or not" I would agree.

Leaving once joining is a vastly more complex question, and not one that lends itself to binary answers. The reality is that any informed answer for "leave" is almost certainly going to be of the form "Yes, leave, as long as..." which of course does not lend itself to a referendum at all.

As for complexity, this Brexit referendum had a very simple question, very easy to understand. The issue was perfect for a yes/no answer. The short term consequences (business as usual with a Remain, huge hit to the economy and huge uncertainties with a Leave) were well known, and whatever Bregret there is seems to be tied to the short term consequences.

The simplicity of the question hides the complexity of the issue.

Also, it is kind of stupid to have a "leave" vote be susceptible to a simple majority anyway. It should take a much greater weight to dissolve a complex union.

I would certainly not agree that a state should be allowed to leave the USA on a simple majority vote, for example. Or that we should modify the Constitution by a simple majority.

There are reasons we don't all just use simple democracy rather than representative republics.

I don't see a fundamental difference between join and leave.

Neither Sweden nor the UK uses a simple majority referendum to decide whether to join or leave the EU. In both cases the referendum was non-binding. Parliament/Riksdag deciding on this kind of issue without having an explicit OK from the people seems unhealthy to me.

Agreed.

I support referendums for big constitutional changes like joining/leaving the EU, becoming independent, changing the voting system however complicated the issue. And for all the little stories about Bregret it's not like everything that's happened wasn't warned about by Remain. The people listened and decided, with glorious elan, 'fuck it'.

The people we elect have their power for a turn, it's not for them to fundamentally change the rules of the game forever more.

[OttoVonBismarck]

In the United States, facing a similar situation, I think I'd prefer membership in or out of such an organization be subject to the same requirements as a constitutional amendment--approval of 3/4ths of the State legislatures. This insures buy-in from the vast majority of the Federal subdivisions, and thus the vast majority of the people. The need for a referendum is simply not present.

As it is under U.S. law we could, theoretically, join the EU with the simple treaty-making power of the President and Senate; but to actually execute most requirements of EU regulation, and make them binding on the States (the only way to make them binding at all) you'd need either a series of constitutional amendments, or one really long/complex one.

In general I don't think referendum are appropriate at all, frankly. Swiss cantons and the Swiss confederation are interesting counterpoints, and there's other examples from history (like the New England towns ran by town hall meetings), I think it's generally something that won't work in most places and the UK is one where it doesn't, at all.

If they had to do this, I would've preferred the referendum be:

Option A: Should we maintain our current relationship with the EU?
Option B: Should we pursue leaving the EU and determining the future relationship with the EU as non-members?

Option B would then be contingent on a unanimous vote by the devolved parliaments of NI, Scotland, and Wales. If that doesn't happen, then it goes no further.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Agreed.

I support referendums for big constitutional changes like joining/leaving the EU, becoming independent, changing the voting system however complicated the issue. And for all the little stories about Bregret it's not like everything that's happened wasn't warned about by Remain. The people listened and decided, with glorious elan, 'fuck it'.

The people we elect have their power for a turn, it's not for them to fundamentally change the rules of the game forever more.

Except they don't, they are subject to elections at regular and irregular intervals. If enough constituencies support a thing, Parliament would have to recognize it. I think Cameron should've taken this approach:

1. Promise to hold a conscience vote on whether or not to hold an EU in/out referendum. If that doesn't have a majority, then it shouldn't be held, simple reality.
2. If it does pass, then have the referendum I proposed above.

Cameron himself did not support Brexit, but supported the referendum. That's ass backwards, he should've said that their roles as MPs means they should recognize the desire of people to debate the issue--and to hold a free vote in Parliament on whether a referendum should be held. Instead he brow-beat many remain conservatives to support the referendum as a political ploy to deflate an attack on his party's power base from the UKIP. A gravely stupid move, and probably unnecessary, since it looks like UKIP doesn't just grab disaffected Tories in any case.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think it's arguably you could politically stage an "out" of the Brexit vote by invoking national unity, the next PM could make the argument that due to the importance of keeping the country unified, he would seek approval from the devolved legislatures before invoking Article 50. Then when Scotland and NI predictably vote against leaving the EU, he can say that since he as Prime Minister of a United Kingdom, has a responsibility to that union's integrity, he cannot proceed with invoking Article 50.

[Valmy]

If people are complaining about the general public's ability to decide referendums then why are they okay with them deciding elections?

Well that is the entire question between republican government and direct democracy isn't it? Since this has been debated for thousands of years I am not sure I need to explain it.

But I feel like I have stated the problems with direct democracy several times already recently.

[crazy canuck]

If people are complaining about the general public's ability to decide referendums then why are they okay with them deciding elections?

Well that is the entire question between republican government and direct democracy isn't it? Since this has been debated for thousands of years I am not sure I need to explain it.

But I feel like I have stated the problems with direct democracy several times already recently.

Not just republican government.  The British Parliamentary system was equally well equipped to deal with the issue.  There was no need for this vote.