The Brexit referendum question was flawed in its design by ignoring Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem. Thomas Colignatus explains why.
Theresa May’s government, with support from the UK Parliament, has adopted Brexit as its policy aim and has invoked Article 50. Yet, economic theory assumes rational agents, and even governments might be open for rational reconsideration.
The unsatisfactory referendum question
Based upon voting theory, the Brexit referendum question can be rejected as technically unsatisfactory. One could even argue that the UK government should have annulled the outcome based on this basis alone. Even more ambitiously, one might imagine that economists and political scientists across Europe take up this issue and hence provide a basis for the EU Commission to negotiate for a proper referendum question. The big question is why the UK procedures didn’t produce a sound referendum choice in the first place.
Renwick et al. (2016) in an opinion in The Telegraph June 14 protested: ‘A referendum result is democratically legitimate only if voters can make an informed decision. Yet the level of misinformation in the current campaign is so great that democratic legitimacy is called into question’.
Their letter complains about the quality of information available to voters (an issue about which the RES has raised complaints with the BBC). It doesn’t make the point that the UK government, by ignoring voting theory, has posed a very misleading question given the complexity of the issue under decision. Quite unsettling is the Grassegger and Krogerus (2017) report about voter manipulation by Big Data, originally on Brexit and later for the election of Donald Trump. But the key point here concerns the referendum question itself.
Image (Wikipedia): Public Domain.
The problem with the question
The question assumes a binary choice — Remain or Leave the EU — while voting theory warns that allowing only two options can easily be a misleading representation of the real choice. When the true situation is more complex, and especially if it is one that arouses strong passions, then reducing the question to a binary one might suggest a political motivation. As a result of the present process, we actually don’t know how people would have voted when they had been offered the true options.
Compare the question: ‘Do you still beat your mother ?’
When you are allowed only a Yes or No answer, then you are blocked from answering:
‘I will not answer that question because if I say No then it suggests that I agree that I have beaten her in the past.’
In the case of Brexit, the hidden complexity concerned:
— Leave, and adopt an EFTA or WTO framework?
— Leave, while the UK remains intact or while it splits up?
— Remain, in what manner?
Voting theory generally suggests that representative democracy — Parliament — is better than relying on referenda, since the representatives can bargain about the complex choices involved.
Deadlocks can lurk in hiding
When there are only two options then everyone knows about the possibility of a stalemate. This means a collective indifference. There are various ways to break the deadlock: voting again, the chairperson decides, flip a coin, using the alphabet, and so on. There is a crucial distinction between voting (vote results) and deciding. When there are three options or more there can be a deadlock as well. It is less well-known that there can also be cycles. It is even less recognised that such cycles are actually a disguised form of a deadlock.
Take for example three candidates A, B and C and a particular distribution of preferences. When the vote is between A and B then A wins. We denote this as A > B. When the vote is between B and C then B wins, or B > C. When the vote is between C and A then C wins or C > A. Collectively A > B > C > A. Collectively, there is indifference. It is a key notion in voting theory that there can be distributions of preferences, such that a collective binary choice seems to result into a clear decision, while in reality there is a deadlock in hiding.
Kenneth Arrow who passed away on February 21 used these cycles to create his 1951 ‘impossibility theorem’. Indeed, if you interpret a cycle as a decision then this causes an inconsistency or an ‘impossibility’ with respect to the required transitivity of a (collective) preference ordering. However, reality is consistent and people do really make choices collectively, and thus the proper interpretation is an ‘indifference’ or deadlock. It was and is a major confusion in voting theory that Arrow’s mathematics are correct but that his own verbal interpretation was incorrect.
Representative government is better than referenda
Obviously a deadlock must be broken. Again, it may be political motivation that reduces the choice from three options A, B and C to only two. Who selects those two might take the pair that fits his or her interests. A selection in successive rounds as in France at the moment is no solution. There are ample horror scenarios when bad election designs cause minority winners. Decisions are made preferably via discussion in Parliament. Parliamentarian choice of the Prime Minister is better than direct election like for the US President.
Voting theory is not well understood in general. The UK referendum in 2011 on Alternative Vote (AV) presented a design that was far too complex. Best is that Parliament is chosen in proportional manner as in Holland, rather than in districts as in the UK or the USA. It suffices when people can vote for the party of their choice (with the national threshold of a seat), and that the professionals in Parliament use the more complex voting mechanisms (like bargaining or the Borda Fixed Point method). It is also crucial to be aware that the Trias Politica model for democracy fails and that more checks and balances are required, notably with an Economic Supreme Court.
The UK Electoral Commission goofed too
The UK Electoral Commission might be abstractly aware of this issue in voting theory, but they didn’t protest, and they only checked that the Brexit referendum question could be ‘understood’. The latter is an ambiguous notion. People might ‘understand’ quite a lot but they might not truly understand the hidden complexity and the pitfalls of voting theory. Even Nobel Prize winner Kenneth Arrow gave a problematic interpretation of his theorem. The Electoral Commission is to be praised for the effort to remove bias, where the chosen words ‘Remain’ and ‘Leave’ are neutral, and where both statements were included and not only one. (Some people don’t want to say ‘No’. Some don’t want to say ‘Yes’.) Still, the Commission gives an interpretation of the ‘intelligibility’ of the question that doesn’t square with voting theory and that doesn’t protect the electorate from a voting disaster.
A test on this issue involves asking yourself: Given the referendum outcome, do you really think that the UK population is clear in its position, whatever the issues of how to leave or the risk of a UK breakup? If you have doubts on the latter, then you agree that something is amiss. The outcome of the referendum really doesn’t give us a clue as to what UK voters want. Scotland wants to remain in the EU and then break up? This is okay for the others who want to Leave? (And how?) The issue can be seen as a statistical enquiry into what views people have, and the referendum question is biased and cannot be used for sound conclusions.
In an email to the author in July 2016 a spokesman for the Electoral Commission said its role: ‘… is to evaluate the intelligibility of referendum questions in line with the intent of Parliament; it is not to re-evaluate the premise of the question. Other than that, I don’t believe there is anything I can usefully add to our previously published statements on this matter.’
Apparently the Commission knows the ‘intent of Parliament’, while Parliament itself might not do so. Is the Commission only a facilitator of deception, and don’t they have a mission to put voters first? At best the Commission holds that Whitehall and Parliament fully understood voting theory and therefore intentionally presented the UK population with a biased choice, so that voters would be compelled to neglect the complexities of leaving or even a break-up of the Union. Obviously the assumption that Whitehall and Parliament fully grasp voting theory is dubious. The better response by the Commission would have been to explain the pitfalls of voting theory and the misleading character of the referendum question, rather than facilitate the voting disaster.
Any recognition that something is (very) wrong here, should also imply the annulment of the Brexit referendum outcome. Subsequently, to protect voters from such manipulation by Whitehall, one may think of a law that gives the Electoral Commission the right to veto a biased Yes / No selection, which veto might be overruled by a 2/3 majority in Parliament. Best is not to have referenda at all, unless you are really sure that a coin can only fall either way, and not land on its side (by a hidden deadlock).
This article first appeared in the Newsletter of the Royal Economic Society, it gives the views of the author, and not the position of LSE Brexit, nor of the London School of Economics.
Thomas Colignatus is the science name of Thomas Cool, an econometrician (Groningen 1982) and teacher of mathematics (Leiden 2008), Scheveningen, Holland.
We voted to leave, it was yes/no to Remain/Leave the European Union. It was not a yes/no with “but’s” on the ballot paper. The but’s were covered in the briefing people were clued up on the scenarios. People knew what they voted for. Majority of the votes decided to Leave.
If the result was remain would this be continously re-analysed until we arrived at a leave outcome, no because the undoing would be dismissed as divisive.
Well a friend of mine voted to leave based on being told that we were “no longer a sovereign state” as we were being “dictated to by faceless Brussels Bureaucrats”, and that we should “take back control”. Something that the Government white paper admitted was a fallacy by explicitly stating that we were *always* a sovereign state (even though, as they said “it didn’t always fell like it” – whatever the hell that means). She most certainly did not vote to leave based on reducing immigration, something she points out at length whenever I see her. So no, people didn’t know what they voted for. You, specifically, may have wanted the foreigners out, red-white and blue flavour of Brexit, but a lot of people did not. I would also point out that we were told we would have “exactly the same access” to the Single Market (the “cake and eat it” model), something that remains to be seen. I take it that if we don’t get it, based on your argument that people knew what they were voting for – and the single market access point was one that was repeatedly made by the likes of BoJo and DD, you would agree the referendum was flawed and should be re-run? Specifically because we were *not* “clued up” given that we were given a cast-iron promise on continued “exactly the same” single market access?
A friend of mine voted remain because he was told that voting to leave might cause a war, he most certainly didn’t vote to remain based on creating an EU army, something he points out whenever I see him. So no, some people are so stupid or so keen to signal their virtuosity, that they haven’t got any principals of their own or a sense of personal responsibility in their whole body.
Disagree, the referendum does not need to be re-run, it was not a board game three throws of the dice until you got six.
Is it really relevant *why* an individual voted for a particular option, as long as it wasn’t misinterpreted (as a “yes” or “no” question could have been, potentially; in the Scottish one, “yes” was synonymous with leaving)? A vote for Labour because the incumbent Conservative MP seemed profligate with his expenses is just as valid as the same vote cast out of fear the Conservative candidate might support a resumption of fox hunting, after all.
The article’s proposed alternative seems outright dishonest to me, perhaps intentionally splitting the Leave vote between two options – which risked the absurd miscarriage whereby 30% voted for each of the variations on Leave, but 40% voted for the sole Remain option – and what on earth is “while the UK remains intact or while it splits up?” even supposed to mean in this context? Is the author trying to shoehorn in a sub-vote on whether or not Scotland should re-run the 2014 independence referendum as well?
The decision on which we were actually voting was a black and white one: invoke Article 50 (thereby leaving), or not (thereby remaining). Exactly how the subsequent negotiations should be managed is a separate question; that could have been addressed in a second question, as was done in the Scottish devolution in 1997, when we voted first on whether or not the Scottish Parliament should be created at all, then secondly on whether or not that Parliament – if created – should have the power to levy taxes.
(Better still, we could have voted on negotiation “red lines”: for example, that we want a free trade agreement, and equal treatment for EU and non-EU immigrants – but perhaps that level of detail is better left to the negotiating team for now?)
Juliet,
It’s almost as though you didn’t even bother to read any of the well-argued points about voting theory and the inadequacy of the binary choice,
Did you read it? Any of it?
Dave, yes I read the “well-argued points about
voting theory and the inadequacy of the binary choice”, however my opinion remains unchanged.
We should have a really interesting time discussing the merits of the result of the June election.On the basis of the voting theory debated here, even without a shade of vote-rigging or voting irregularities it will be a fore gone conclusion that Thomas will dispute the result.The system is crooked, even if it is legal.The people are ill-informed, even as academics have every opportunity to put in their tuppence worth before the election.We are facing a situation where everyone of the millions of academics can seek to overturn a political legal vote voted on in a legal and above-board political process on the basis of one theory out of millions.Perhaps people should be allowed a vote on whether they want this or any particular theory to have a veto over every and all democratic political decisions taken anywhere in the West.I would suggest Thomas takes his theory to the People’s Republic whose foto featured with my letter to the Oz Fin Review yesterday.Good luck to all academics everywhere who seek to overturn political faits accompli.
What happens next is up to May, her government, Parliament and the British people.
Photo for foto, sorry.The Dutch spell-checker interfered.
Sorry, that’s utter tosh, leave teams were found to have cheated, and as such, the number of votes that allowed them a victory is suspicious at best, insufficient at worst.
Hmm, so there is a flaw in putting a ‘binary’ question to the electorate? That assertion therefore renders the whole of parliamentary debate and decision making equally flawed, as MPs can only every vote Aye or No in the division lobbies. They NEVER make a simultaneous decision between multiple choices. They cannot, as parliamentary procedure does not allow this. Yes, they can debate multiple options as much as they like, but ultimately they must vote for or against a motion, amendment or bill in front of them. Just as the electorate did in 2016.
Ans as for those who propose a referendum between accepting the PMs deal and Remain (e.g. Lib Dems, SNP, Greens etc.) are being disingenuous. These are not even two opposite choices (rejecting one does not imply accepting the other). There will be many who disagree with both options. The only options I see as valid, if another referendum were ever run because no alternative deal is forthcoming, would be along the lines of:
1. Accept the PMs current deal / Reject the PM’s current deal
Then, IF and ONLY IF the current deal were to be rejected by the people, choose between:
2. Remain in the EU / Leave the EU with no deal
Such a ballot would concentrate the minds of both Leavers and Remainers as the both run the risk, if they reject the current deal, of getting a result they really don’t want.
“So there is a flaw in putting a ‘binary’ question to the electorate”.
That’s not what the writer said. Binary questions are themselves no a problem, where there is a clearly agreed an defined meaning of both options i.e. Sweden’s Referendum ‘Do you want to drive on the right hand side, or left hand side on the road’?
Binary questions where the definitions and consequences of the options are open to multiple interpretations are hugely problematic, as our current predicament proves beyond all doubt.
Pretending, as some do in these comments there is only one interpretation of ‘Remain’ or ‘Leave’ is merely an evasive argument of convenience, used to defend a preferred outcome while ignoring reality.
If it was SO simple, why has it all become so complicated. It’s an illogical and indefensible position.
Ahhhhhh, I see, the only reason we voted to leave was because we were asked the “wrong” question and if we had been asked the “right” question, we would have voted to remain in the EU.
Still, I suppose its an interesting way of trotting out the tired “you only voted leave because you didn’t know what you were voting for” nonsense.
Roll on the day we leave.
There is also the other argument raised by Salmond regarding why a supramajority was not going to be proposed in the referendum act. He was told it was because the referendum was advisory only so that the result would never carry the weight on its own to bring about major constitutional change. It would advise parliament only who would then add that advice to their subsequent discussions.
However, when a slim majority to leave was returned there was an immediate drive to seal the deal. Suddenly an advisory referendum became binding.
The biggest misunderstanding seems to be what the word “advisory” means.
There are as few good arguments to support the process and result as there are for Brexit in general. It is a hollow victory to reduce the prosperity and security of the nation as a whole.
So was Scotlands referendum in 2014 only advisory, as a supramajority was not proposed. And who told Salmond that, why did they not make that clear in the governments Brexit facts leaflet, as there is no mention of it.
Kate, with the exception of the Alternative Vote referendum all our referenda haver been legally advisory.
Legally advisory, that is with no force in law, but of course politically binding (if they achieve whatever majority rule is set for them).
The reason the AV referendum could be made legally binding is that Parliament had passed detailed legislation. The question was therefore not “Would you like some form of proportional representation?” but “do you wish the Act to be brought into force?”.
Brexit, Scottish independence are too complex to be subject to legally binding referenda – what could a court of law decide upon if you sued the government for having done/ not done what the result meant?
But the lack of clarity in the Leave proposition – compare the lengthy document that the SNP produced for indyref1, or the manifestos that the political parties are putting forward now – mean that the 2016 result can only be provisional. Standard project management: approval to an idea is subject to review once there is a plan. Hence the need for a referendum when we know what Brexit means at the end of the negotiations.
And no: “Leave the EU” is not a plan. Nor does knowledge of the EU amount to a plan about what Leaving would entail. Even now, the parties’ manifestos barely tell us what they would do differently as a result of Brexit.
For the Scottish referendum they allowed 16 & 17 year olds to vote as tbh thought giving a vote to those who would be most impacted was better than implementing a supermajority.
The House of Lords proposed an amendment to the EU referendum bill to allow 16 & 17 year olds to vote for the same reason but the government rejected it on the basis of the referendum being only advisory and that the government could be trusted to take into account the best interests of future generations.
No, there was bias in the question, and with such a narrow result, when you account for the leave team’s cheating as well, means such bias could have altered the outcome unfairly, hence the article.
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?”
This was the original wording, later changed to –
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”
Still a perceived negative bias wording for a Leave vote by many but, deemed better than the original by some.
As for cheating by the leave team, surely you are joking! Although the leave vote won, the leave campaign, post referendum was hijacked by the remain side, t may, m carney, g osborne et al and can not in all honesty be held responsible for the inadequacies and dishonesy of the government and their minions. Anyone pro leave has been excluded from any negotiations or ignored.
The writer didn’t say we were asked the “wrong” question. You’re only reading what it is you want to read.
That’s the implication of the article. If anything we should have had an immediate follow up vote “would you be prepared to leave without a deal?” since there was no mention of a deal. Because the Government of the time arrogantly believed that remain would win.
Karl
Those consequences were discussed over multiple option versions of Leave.
One or two of those options (there were at least 5) absolutely involved being half in and half out.
The issue here, is that Leave were challenging the status quo.
As such Leave had a responsibility to provide a clear & viable alternative, which could convincingly be demonstrated to justify abandoning the status quo, (and all the Constitutional upheaval involved) to the significant benefit of the vast majority of UK citizens.
To this day, Leave has failed, even amongst its own support, to do so, and thus we are left with two choices.
A) The one the Government unilaterally made up as it went along, in reaction to deteriorating circumstances.
B) The one almost universally recognised, at the start of this process, as being the ‘avoid-at-all-costs’ fall-back, in the event of negotiations failing.
This is now dishonestly being promoted in some quarters, as the conscious, preferred choice of millions, despite there being no proof whatsoever of it being the case.
If the Government succeeds in forcing through either option, we will have had a version of Brexit imposed upon the population, as a result of the Government’s political manipulation of a very narrow, 3yr old majority.
Thank you, Juliet, for your response. Am I right that you interprete “Leave” as “Leave, whatever the costs, whatever it may mean” and “Remain” as (1) either the opposite of this “Leave”, or, instead as (2) “Remain, whatever the costs, whatever it may mean” ? Note that (2) deletes a middle ground. Exactly how you interprete these options ? And why do you assume that others have the same interpretation as you do, so that the vote was on the same issue ?
It would have been helpful when you would have indicated that you looked at this issue with adequate research on voting theory, as it is my point that this angle has been seriously neglected. Let me mention an interview with me by Protesilaos Stavrou that would be informative as well: https://protesilaos.com/colignatus-brexit-referenda-interview/
The LSE Brexit blog featured a review of a book by Clarke et al. (2017) on why the UK voted to Leave. Apparently serious statistical gut reading still is required to interprete the outcome, which contradicts your claim of clarity. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/05/12/book-review-brexit-why-britain-voted-to-leave-the-european-union/
When two opposing perspectives differ by 180 degrees, it must be reckoned impossible for the two points of view to be reconciled.Political theory cannot accommodate rational thinking, therefor it is of no use to bring the rational thinking mooted to be be inherent in economic theory into the debate.The argument of the author, whose comment I comment upon here, pointedly ignores poitical practice, as opposed to theory and extraneous argument.Ever since the dawn of time, families and tribes and coagulations of same have joined up and split off on a regular basis.That is a fact of life, even now.The joining up was and is often a bloody and acrimonious affair.Likewise the splitting up.Rarely is a divorce entirely amicably.With Brexit, the remainers who will not rest to overturn the result will not brook others looking at the facts.The facts are, even now, many nations in the world operate successfully as sovereign nation-states.Many are only in relatively recent times become independent.The BeNeLux, we recall, worked fine, until it was subsumed into the EEC.The EEC was not called the EP(for political)C.Well, too many people at the time of the formation of the EEC did not read the fine print.They were different times.The welfare state was still getting better.Anyone who wanted to work could get a job and get ahead.Corporate globalisation and both political and economic disenfranchisement are now a fact of life for an increasing percentage of citizens in their country of birth and citizenship.In fact, there is a major problem in the Western European countries which the people who are still doing well in the system are unable or unwilling to face.Brexiters and those in the EU who have turned against the EU need not argue their case.All they need do is sit back and let this train wreck run its course.Therefor, all that could be logically argued against remainers may remain unsaid as the near future will, barring miracles, say it for us.
@ Jacob Jonker: (1) You state that there are two opposing perspectives. Well, if there are at least three perspectives (agreed elsewhere in this blog discussion) then there are more. With A, B and C, we have {A, B}, {B, C} and {A, C}. Which do you select ? Or would it be wise to look at them all ? (2) If you refer to politics, then why not to economics, and the possibility to find solutions by means of bargaining ? It might be something to think about: In Holland and Germany, there is a tradition of bargaining also at the national level, while the UK might have more a “winner take all” mentality. (3) As to globalisation and disenfranchisement, my article refers to the failure of the Trias Politica system of separation of powers, and thus the need of an Economic Supreme Court. (4) Why is it, that there are no blanks after your dots?
No blanks/space after the period.Dat heet period, Thomas, niet “dot”. Now for your argument about the different number of perspectives.Space. At basis, as determined by the politics of the day, two options did remain standing, as you know and do contest. You argue that there should have been more, say A, B, C and D. By the same token, any other legal person who is also a citizen of the world would have every right to argue that there should have been more and/or different options, say, 1,2,3,4 and half a dozen more. Yet another citizen of the world will have yet another configuration, and so it goes. The politics of the day did determine the binary choice in the referendum in question.Maybe because we live in binary times, or maybe because the earlier referendum was also a binary choice, in 1975 if I remember correctly.
If you are making your point for any referendum to come, I would not argue except on the merits of the case, which are as yet unknown because we have not yet agreed which future referendum we may argue about. Your reference to economics and bargaining is also applicable to future events. It cannot apply to Brexit, because the Brexit referendum was mooted, considered, called and debated, and subsequently held according to what the Cameron cabinet or whoever in charge determined according, we may or may not assume, political rather than economic parameters.
You do not think that your view and the one opposed is a 180’degree difference.I meant to say that the result of a binary choice made and accepted is irreconcilable with your perspective. As I pointed out, it is an argument of infinite choices which can be trotted out against any decision made to rail against it ad infinitum. Your academic systems do not interest me one iota. What is of interest to me in the case you put is the logic and the thrust of it. Your logic I found wanting, to say the least, and your thrust I found to be a remoaner “we lost, but we ought to have won and we are ever right on this no matter what”. If this is not the case, obviously you disagree, please look at it from a political perspective. Brexit was a political referendum. For most Leavers it was a political decision. The framing of the questions was exclusively political. It is done, the people made a choice, a political choice. Your academic argument is for next time. If you do not wish to overturn the Brexit referendum, do make it more explicit. When the political waters are muddied as they are, and you put an argument which is not meant to muddy the waters of political debate even more, do not colour your argument the same as the remoaner “we was robbed”. Over 2 U.
Let me spell it out. People vote remain / leave probably with multiple reasons but the end game was simple: people voted remain because … they wanted the status quo to remain unchanged (&) people vote leave because … they want change and the undecided did not vote. It was not rocket science. It is pointless to over analyse voters motivations because the outcome did not go the way you wanted it to. There comes a time when you have to accept and move on.
What a complete load of remainer nonsense as usual , and comparing it to the wife beating question is a lesson in subterfuge I find frankly staggering. It is embarrassing how people are trying to overturn the will of the people in one of the biggest voter turn outs in history, We knew exactly what we voted for as you full well know.
‘Will of the people”? Come on. I cannot call an almost 50-50 to be ‘the will of the people’.
Almost 50-50 wasn’t anywhere near the result. The current parties would love to win by 4% of the vote (check back – it’s rarely happened). That’s why it was by constituency a landslide decision.
In any event, if remain had lost by one vote (or leave) the vote would still have been valid. If people don’t realise that Democracy can disenfranchise almost 50% of people they shouldn’t bother voting.
The biggest embarrassment is how you fail to see the issues raised in the illegitimacy of the question. Such questions are posed constantly in court for instance to give those questioned no room for manoeuvre. In effect it reduces the question to a statement supported by whichever answer is given. Hobson’s choice, no question at all as there is no probe for truth. Pure manipulation.
The same question was asked in 1975, so by your logic the UK never legally joined the EEC (later renamed to the EU) in the first place.
I second that.
It was not the will of the people to vote leave. It was the way 17.4 million people cast their vote, however 40 million people did not vote to leave.
There aren’t 57.4 million eligible voters. Statistically even if it were 100% turnout the result would likely be the same because the turnout was a massive sample of the data. (Full disclosure – degree in Mathematics and Computer Science).
What a shameful load of usual leaver ignorance you trotted out almost 2 years ago. What I find staggering and hugely embarrassing, is the fact you stated “we (“the will of the people”) knew what we were voting for…”, particularly with most of the rest of the world (apart from trumpists, that is) looking on whilst “we” make a holy show and a laughing stock of ourselves. Wow< just WOW! Perhaps you may understand why I'm a mixture of outrage, confusion and curiosity: outraged because, we're closer to the biggest economic disaster since the 1930's (and there were warnings before votes were cast if you were really properly informed), with the Government even preparing a Command Bunker and bring in the army to tackle any civil unrest that may arise due to "the will of the people"…yes, like you; confused because, it's beyond my comprehension how anyone could have voted 'knowingly' for this chaos and constitutional mess (How? Just HOW?); and curious because, I'm wondering whether you'll still be man enough to NOW to stand by what you said almost 2 years ago, have the same courage of your convictions or, if not, at least own up to your own ignorance of the real issues, that you made a mistake or were wrong, an apologise to your fellow "people" who most decidedly didn't vote for this when confronted with the same 'binary' choice as you???
I’m always a little perturbed by the statement from individuals ‘we won’ or ‘we voted to leave’ and even more disturbing ‘we knew what we were voting for’. An individual can only ever comment on their own voting experience, it is certainly a stretch of the imagination to to assume to know what other voters know, particularly on the issue of what a leave vote would entail? That is still an unknown to the Gov and to the EU.
If the British people did not know what they were voting to leave after 42 years of being a member, then what makes you think they knew what they voted to remain a member of in 1975?, 2 years after being made a member by Heath without their consent?
@ Karl and Mark: I am sorry that my article creates the suggestion with you that the article has a Remain bias. There is no intention of this at all. My analysis on Arrow’s Theorem dates back to 1990, and the first edition of my book “Voting Theory for Democracy” was in 2001, long before this referendum of last year. The analysis is beneficial for all group decision making, in parliaments, companies, soccer clubs and what have you, and not only the Brexit referendum question. The analysis emphasizes bargaining, with voting as one of the options to arrive at a decision. My observation on the Brexit referendum question derives from this analysis. My only point is that when you use voting methods, then beware of “garbage in, garbage out” situations. It is entirely up to the UK electorate what one prefers to do. If the referendum question didn’t take account of the relevant options then one cannot say what the UK electorate really wants. You seem to think that it is clear, but then I wonder whether you properly studied voting theory.
Thomas – The “consequences” of voting to leave the EU were trotted out at every opportunity by the Government of the day and an endless variety of individuals in the weeks leading up to the day of the vote, these included economic Armageddon and war. All of this “end of the world as we know it” scaremongering was based on us leaving the EU completely, ending our membership of it, not staying in a bit and having a little freedom of movement, being subject to a few EU wide laws, paying a small amount of money for the privilege of a bit of a membership etc. So I think we can safely say that those who voted to leave knew what we were voting for and so did all those who voted remain.
I don’t need to study voting theory, there were two options, remain or leave, not half in or half out.
@ Karl: You agree that there are are actually three options. There are probably more but let us settle for three. Then voting theory shows that presenting only two options can be misleading. When the electorate has actually a deadlock A > B > C > A (or economically said a collective indifference) then the presentation of only two options is misleading, and will generate a false sense of decisiveness. A short video by Uni Leeds is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzS-RkzRRVM and observe that they use ranks so that 1st > 2nd > 3rd. You claim that all information has been given on the two options. The argument is not on information about two options, the argument is about not measuring the views on the third option at all.
One can bring a horse to water but not make it drink. One cannot force investors to invest – whence Keynes’s “animal spirits”. One cannot force people to study voting theory – other than including it in highschool curriculum. I had a short article on voting theory in “Mathematics Teaching” in 2011.https://www.atm.org.uk/mathematics-teaching-journal-archive/3921 Unfortunately this is behind a paywall. Check my website: http://thomascool.eu/Papers/VTFD/2010-05-27-Wrt-Referendum-on-PR.html
If the British people did not know what they were voting to leave after 42 years of being a member, then what makes you think they knew what they voted to remain a member of in 1975?, 2 years after being made a member by Heath without their consent?
Spot on Karl
Juliet, bravo! You’ve completely failed to engage with the central argument of this blog post.
Alpha Papa, there you go making assumptions before knowing the reason why!
Leavers are still expecting the remainers to “sort it out”. They want to leave the EU and it doesn’t matter what happens!
Let’s put it ths way. If someone is not happy with the house they live in . They have options – Walk out and leave it with no plan or anywhere to go. Make plans to leave and sort out where to go . Don’t leave and have a plan to change the house they live in.
Remainers just want the first option. It will lead to chaos. The government has no plan and/or refuse to tell people what the plan is.
Government mandate is to negotiate a new trade deal that works for both the UK and EU, the fallback option is WTO.
The government isn’t jus negotiating trade. The are negotiating our entire relationship with the EU post-brexit. No deal does not just mean that we leave without a trade deal and we default to WTO, it means that the EU does not recognise any paperwork issued by UK bodies unless it is covered by international treaty. So passports will still be OK for example, but MOT certificates for vehicles and air safety certificates for aircraft issued by the DoT will not. Visaless travel will be a thing of the past.
Then when you do consider trade the WTO is not a “world trade deal” as leave groups have recently started labelling it. The WTO is not a trade deal at all, the ETO is the bare basic framework that allows trade to happen between countries that do not have trade deals but even then no country in the world trades solely on WTO terms, and WTO rules require the proper enforcement of borders so say goodbye to the Good Friday Agreement if we leave without a deal.
We should also understand that the WTO may not be an option as a number of countries are currently blocking the EU/UK submission for the division of current EU WTO quotas between the EU and UK along with the post-brexit tariffs. The countries blocking the EU/UK WTO proposals are Argentina, Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, Thailand, Uruguay and the USA. Argentina haven’t given a reason but the others want more preferential quotas and tariffs and are effectively blackmailing us to give them trade deals that benefit them without also benefiting us. Didn’t the leave campaign claim that some of those countries We are queuing up to give us good trade deals?
No deal would be inconvenient for the EU but an absolute disaster for the UK.
The government’s mandate is always to put the nation interest first. It is one of the primary rules for MPs. It seems that they have forgotten that requirement of their jobs.
Oh you mean like in the “have our cake and eat it” model/’plan’, Juliet? How very britishly arrogant of you! That’s the sort of attitude that has not only got us known as “the awkward one’s” on the bloc for a lot of the time in the EU but, is what has got us in the mess we’re in now almost 2 years later. FYI, we already have (or had) trade agreements set-up with most of the rest of the World under EU membership (57 other countries was a figure I’ve seen recently, though I can’t remember if that’s including the other 27 EU countries or not). But, as Nicola has pointed out, especially if we leave without a deal, all those agreements will be scrapped; we’ll have to start negotiating our own deals under WTO terms (so much tougher on our own); as Nicola has pointed out, saying goodbye to the GFA and a number of those countries blocking the EU/UK submission along with the post-brexit tariffs; and would be an unmitigated disaster for the UK, where you’ll probably be left eating your words, never mind cake.
The “we all knew what we were voting for” argument simply does not hold water. The Leave campaign was based on manifest untruths, baseless promises, unwarranted optimism now being dressed up as “ambition”, and vile scaremongering. Any potentially negative consequences of leaving were irresponsibly dismissed as Project Fear. And “we all” is at best a paper-thin majority of all those who voted, certainly not of the country as a whole and certainly not “the voice of the people”.
Then why did the remain campaign claim leaving would result in what you now say would happen if we left the single market?.
What’s not addressed in the above is whether voters are (a) DETERMINED to leave/remain, irrespective of the advantages either way, or (b) whether they are uncertain, just inclined to vote in a particular way. [To take examples, one might presume that Mr Farage was a “determined leaver” — call him 99% — while (on the basis of what he had said), Boris Johnson was marginally inclined to leave – call him 60%; and on the remain side one might suppose Mrs May to have been 60% and Kenneth Clarke 99%].
Surely, it’s impossible to obtain a fully balanced and democratic yes or no answer to a binary question without taking the above into full account, which, I suppose means that a referendum — in particular a binary one — can never be fully balanced and democratic.
Well, in the end it is a binary choice: leave or remain. All complex decisions come down to binary choices in the end. “What shall l do tonight?” ends up as “shall l see this film at this cinema at this time?”.
And yes, the people can decide this question – there is a long history of plebiscites to settle border issues. They were preferred by the League of Nations, UN &c.
The flaw was not to set up the Brexit referendum as a two stage process, or the flaw was to assume that after decades of complaining Leave would have a plan, or the flaw was to treat what can only properly be seen as a provisional decision as though it was a decision that had been made on a plan.
Think of standard project management. The Board says “that’s a good idea”. You are not then committed to running with whatever plan someone later cooks up. Rather, you have an instruction to work up a plan and bring that back to the board. They can then modify the plan, run with it, reject it.
Same with Brexit. The government has a valid mandate to negotiate a deal. Parliament oversees that in detail. At the end of the negotiations we know for the first time what Brexit means. Then we should have the referendum on the terms with the option to remain.
A quite diffetent question from 2016. Hnding over to the people the chance to make an informed decision.
The decision was to leave the EU.The UK had ample experience being a sovereign nation-state.Why is it that remainers, and apparently others, believe that a stint in the EEC turned into EC into EU will make the UK incapable of functioning as a sovereign state?Please explain.Because Acquis Communautaire works both ways, it means in English that every step taken to regain sovereign independence cannot be reversed.
Jacob Junker: we are a sovereign state now. No-one believes that the UK cannot function outside the EU. Remainers think that Europe and the UK will be better if the UK stays in the EU.
Yes, and some people are saying that the EU Commissariat or the other 27 have a veto on the UK leaving.
I believe you got that muddled-up Jacob Joncker: I believe the position is that if just one of the other 27 member states veto’s the final terms of leaving (and right now we’re not very popular with all member states by any means – the EU certainly doesn’t need us more than we need them, as I’ve heard so many leave voters assert – they’re all heartily sick of it all…or maybe weary would be a better description and I’m pretty sure will be relieved when all this is over, though I’m sure none of them have any ill-will towards us), then we leave without a deal, which btw is looking increasingly likely unless article 50 is revoked. But, no, they can’t veto us leaving because, as Michael has explained, we are (and always have been) a sovereign state and our parliament holds sovereignty – the EU parliament cannot trump that and never could. Could I suggest you look-up out and read Mark Steel in the Independent (he writes a regular column on Thursdays, repeated often in the i paper the next day) where there’s usually a video clip of him speaking as well. His satire is spot on. Also another one is James O’Brien on Capital Radio, loads of clips of phone in’s on Brexit on You Tube. – another that’s spot on.
@Michael: (1) For an individual with a utility function with transitive preferences, a binary choice is okay. For a collective, the preference must be constructed from the individual choices, and then the reliance on binary choices is inconsistent. It is a fallacy that all complex decisions come down to binary choices in the end. One may create a “voting field” of all pairwise elections, but the idea of a collective decision is to transform this. This is precisely why one should study voting theory, and why scientists ought to protest that this got neglected. (2) The article 50 procedure is not like you describe. May has written the letter to the EU, and the UK is leaving the EU. The negotiations are only for the details, and if there is no agreement then it will be a very hard Brexit. It is not part of article 50 that government, parliament of a referendum can decide to remain after all, if those negotiations don’t give a welcome outcome. If the UK repeals the letter, then it is up to the 27 other member states unanimously to agree. A repeal based upon science might be acceptable but a repeal on opportunism might cause irritation. (3) Your missed my point. Even if there is a negotiation deal so that “it is clear what Brexit means”, then one may still doubt whether a referendum is the adequate method. Will such a deal contain the line that Scotland remains in the UK or EU, or will this be vague again ? It is the present government who negotiates with the EU, which again leaves ample scope for “setting the agenda” as it is called in voting theory.
Thomas Colignatus: thank you for replying.
(1) if you mean that a decision A opens up options 1,2,3, and that decision A2 opens up options a,b,c,d and that decision A2d …… then l agree with you, but at some point we decide to do A2di* or not. And whoever makes the decision – people, parliament, dictator – has the same choice. So why not present the package to the people?
(2) as you of course know, whether the article 50 notification may be unilaterally withdrawn is a matter of EU law. Only the ECJ can decide. You will be aware of the Dublin case that hopes to obtain a reference to the ECJ to determine the point. In the meantime l suggest that the balance of legal opinion seems to favour the existence of a unilateral right to withdraw. A right to withdraw with the consent of the EU27 is of course also not provided for in the treaty.
(3) should one not separate the Brexit deal and the consequences? Here is the Brexit deal package. A decision is made by someone to Brexit on the package or to Remain. In response to that decision various things happen, one of which is that the Scots do/ do not have another independence referendum and that results in Leave/ Remain. But is that not a follow-on, rather than part of the original decision?
In the end a decision has to be made.
@Michael: (ad 1) In a ballot box there is no room for bargaining any more. Voting theory suggests that it is better to have a parliament with proportional representation, and let them do the bargaining. See my comparison between Holland and the UK: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/22782/ (ad 2) I agree with your improved description of the situation. I assume that the ECJ is reading this LSE Brexit blog too (and the original RES Newsletter). The idea of article 50 is to Leave the EU, whence there is no sense in revoking this. The bullet has been fired. The axe is swinging down. The only ground for annulment would be the observation that the Brexit referendum question was scientifically unwarranted. Who neglects science and holds that everything was fine, accepts the decision of leaving, and that there will be a hard Brexit if the negotiations fail. The EU will be kind to the UK because one will not want to foster resentment but there it stops. Obviously, article 50 is rather primitive in terms of divorce law, but apparently the UK itself agreed with this when accepting the Lisbon Treaty in 2008. Go blame the lawyers. (ad 3) See what I wrote to Y below about the distinction between voting theory and law that neglects voting theory. In the ballot box, future generations are not present, and there are only voters with expectations about those generations. Such expectations concern what you call “consequences”. A lawyer might say that the consequences are not on the ballot, and praise to you when you believe the lawyer. A humble suggestion is to also consider voting theory, that respects the empirical fact that people can only deal with the future by developing expectations. Yes, a decision has to be made. That is what voting theory is about. Voting theory is not about crafting ballot boxes.
Thomas, thank you for the brief insight into Voting Theorum. I will perhaps find time to read up a little more on it.
I just wanted to ask a question of those who on this forum are claiming that they knew what they were voting for when they chose the ‘Leave’ option in the binary choice offered.
With the Brexit negotiations not yet underway, quite how did you ‘know what we voted for?’
So there seems to be a worrying naivety or simply a refusal to face the truth in all all this.
We all have our own experiences and opinions of life inside the EU providing us with an indication of what voting ‘Remain’ would hold in store.
On the ‘Leave’ side however, we had only our only personal hopes and yhe throw away promises of politicians as an indication of what we might be able to expect outside the EU.
The reality is that even now, none of us actually know what the ‘Leave’ outcome will mean for us and therefore exactly what the country has voted for.
Jon: There is the distinction between the unavoidable uncertainty of the future, like when you go for a swim in the ocean and run the risk of a shark, and the misleading reduction of a complex issue into a seeming rational choice between only two options. Your question to the others whether they knew what they were voting for might create a confusion about what kind of uncertainty you are referring to. It is not unlikely that you are aware of the distinction, but let me emphasize it nevertheless. The intention of my piece is to point to the neglected insights of voting theory, of not mentioning all the options.
The options, Thomas, are in theory infinite and in practice reduced by choices made by people in government and its working bureaucracy through a process called politics.In the case of Brexit, during the years it was mooted, put on offer and subsequently put up for referendum, choices were made all along by various people in various capacities through a political process called politics.Maybe you are best to advise politicians and top bureaucrats before they make a choice.Without a doubt, David Cameron sought advice before, during and after the lead-up to the decision to call a referendum.Do follow what is happening in politics.It’s not as if Groningen is isolated from the UK.The decision has been made.Maybe you could now tell us in theory what the options are for a sovereign independent nation-state such as the UK.In theory the possibilities are endless, in practical terms it depends on politics.Possibly, the theorising by academics is really not so academic.It could be political, could it not?
Pray tell, what is your theory on the possible questions to be asked in a Nexit referendum?Since I am still a Dutch citizen, the outcome would be of some significance to me.Hence, the formulation of questions in that referendum would certainly be of considerable influence upon its result.
@Jacob Jonker: I have the distinct feeling that you are pulling my leg now. It is not on the table that one should ask me what a proper questionnaire for a Nexit might be. My approach is that science better be useful, either as abstract research or in applied advice. In this case, I observe that the Brexit referendum question was deficient, and the article explains why. Voters have used their conditional expectations, and it may well be that these are mutually inconsistent.
No Thomas, I am not pulling your leg. You are now calling the Brexit referendum deficient. You are one of many. Even if scientists have the same powers these days as the arbiters of good and evil in times past, there is still infinite room for disagreement about the result of this, or that, referendum. It is your opinion against someone else.Do not offer your science aginst the political dedision made by a majority in a referendum called and held by a government legally in situ.It will get you nowhere, though disagree you may about the result. One can be certain you would not offer your science in defence of Leavers if the result had gone the other way. Nowadays, there are a lot of political scientists. Politics is politics, the result is in between in and out.It is OUT, How could you know any better than some other person in this world that the result as it stands is politically, economically or in any which way, worse or better than the other binary choice? I do think, apart from the fact that academics/scientists do what they are paid to do or wish to do, your argument is neither here nor there as far as Brexit is concerned. Whatever it was behind the scenes, it was a political issue for most people who wanted out.
I have a simple way to check if various arguments regarding the fairness of elections are serious: I check whether the argument mentions the Arrow theorem favourably. If it does, than the argument in not serious. The Arrow theorem is known to be flawed given its unrealistic assumptions and poor modeling, in particular its absurd IIA criteria. Once the absurd criteria are fixed, there are election systems which satisfy all reasonable requirements like STV.
Back to the arguments presented in the piece, they aren’t very strong. The referendum was on a simple binary question – remain or leave. The author argues this was underspecified. It wasn’t – the decision was only on the principle, and parliament is free to fill in the details. The author can hardly complain: if parliament was fit and proper for the entire task as he argues, than surely it can deal with a subset of it…
@ Y: (1) My article criticises Arrow. The mathematics of his theorem is fine, but his interpretation is not. IIA works for “voting fields”. Arrow confuses this with decisions. IIA doesn’t work for decisions. Arrow claimed that his theorem applied to collective decision making but it only captures some possible confusions. Thus I agree with you that there is a flaw and absurdity. See Chapter 9.2 on page 239 of my VTFD, referred to. Thus my article passes this first check of yours (you didn’t say). (2) STV is a possible method, but it is better to have Proportional Representation, and let parliament handle the more complex methods. See my discussion of the Borda Fixed Point method. (3) If parliament can handle options A, B, and C, then parliament can surely handle a subset. But it is “agenda setting” and manipulation to reduce A, B and C to such a pair. Voting theorists should know this. For example, if A = Remain as UK, B = Leave as UK, C = Split up UK, with England leaving and Scotland remaining.
As far as I know, C is a legal impossibility. Scotland joined as part of UK and it leaves when the UK does. It can’t conduct joining negotiations while it is part of an EU member and while it’s not independent. It could vote for independence, at which point it could *rejoin* the EU, but *remaining* (especially with all the UK opt outs) can’t be done. So this option shouldn’t be there if the meaning is exact.
Alternatively, your meaning ‘remaining’ includes ‘rejoining’. In that case, your split seems to be related to different _results_ of the vote, not different decisions. The voters didn’t expect or wish at the time to be consulted on the break-up of the UK. It could happen and may be a long-term result of vote, but it is hardly entirely determined by the vote, but rather by a separate Scotland poll (and if it were entirely determined – shouldn’t C be folded into B?).
I agree with the legal situation of course. I presented the view from voting theory. A “result” of a vote (as you take it) also features as a conditional expectation at the time of a vote. Future generations are not present at the ballot box, but voters have their (conditional) expectations about those future generations. If the vote ***seems*** to be ***legally*** about A and B, then some voters may have a preference B > A assuming not-C (or leaving united and assuming no split-up). If they are not offered a way to express that they would want to remain if there would be a split up, then the vote is not about the true ***policy*** options involved. One might argue that if they see a serious risk of a split-up, then they should vote for A anyway. This assumes that voters are profound fortune-tellers. It is better to present them with the relevant options, or not have referenda at all, and let parliament deal with the bargaining that cannot be done in the ballot box. PM. I noticed that you switched from your earlier criticism towards the distinction between voting theory and legal approaches that neglect voting theory. It would be better to enter this as a separate item.
With your permission, I’ll say one more thing, and you can have the last word.
As you say, there’s no complete way to wrap a complex expectation for the future into a poll. But I don’t feel trying to describe the possible results is the right way to deal with this. Which probability of Scotland leaving do you feel required it in the poll? 5%, 20% or 50%? Can we prove this estimate is accurate? This is unworkable, we’ll always end up with the shadow of bias.
IMHO, the better way is to see voters as executives giving very general instructions with the government trying a good faith attempt to satisfy the voters – not at “any cost” though. (The Swiss example of the 2014 immigration referendum might be appropriate here. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable in Swiss affairs to determine if the government’s effort could be considered ‘good faith’ though). Yes, this is indeed messy, but all actual government is,
Thomas, you seem to be trying to combine multiple independent choices here: do I want pizza now, or a cheeseburger now then cereal for breakfast tomorrow, or roast unicorn now and toast for breakfast?
“Leave as UK” is simply “Leave”; whether or not Scotland wishes to stay is a separate question (one already asked and answered in 2014, and with a clearly specified mechanism for asking if and when the question comes up again).
“Spit up UK with England leaving and Scotland staying” was never available, for multiple reasons – for one thing, England does not get a vote on whether or not Scotland leaves the UK! (For another, it is “the UK” which has an EU membership; to split the UK up then try to subdivide that membership is legally extremely dodgy at best.)
The fundamental question to answer was whether or not to invoke Article 50. There is no middle ground on that – what would you offer, invoking Article 25 instead?
I strongly suspect this stark choice was a very deliberate one by Cameron, attempting the same ploy he used (successfully) over the Scottish independence referendum previously. There had been calls to add a third option to that, of granting extra power to the Scottish Parliament but without full independence (“devo max”); Cameron rejected that idea, out of fear it would defeat his preferred option of the status quo – then he panicked as opinion polls suggested full independence might win, and promised the extra powers anyway.
Similarly, Cameron promised the referendum confident that his side would win easily, made only a token effort at obtaining concessions, thought he’d rigged it sufficiently by giving more than double the funding to Remain that Leave had (an extra £9m of government-funded campaigning for Remain) – then, of course, discovered too late that he’d fallen short. I wonder if it has yet dawned on Merkel and co that making just a little bit more effort beforehand would have swung it, or that they were not “negotiating with Cameron” as an opponent, but deciding how much ammunition to equip the Europhile Cameron with for the Remain campaign he’d already decided to fight?
Incidentally, the question is not supposed to be “are you still beating your wife?”, to which hopefully the answer is a clear and simple “no”, but “have you STOPPED beating her?”, to which “no” implies you still do, while “yes” implies that you did in the past.
@James Sutherland: You suggest that invoking or not invoking article 50 is a natural binary. Below you state more succinctly: “We were not choosing between 3 different options, we were choosing between two: invoke A50, or not.” You do not get the point. You have the example of “are you still beating your mother” (my version) as an example that what *seems* binary actually isn’t. Thus, let me invite you to really think it over, again, whether invoking article 50 really is a binary. (1) Please do not fall in the legal trap. Legally, you invoke it or not. I hope that you are not arguing as a lawyer, but as an advisor on voting theory, helping the case of democratic decision making. Please observe that voters must decide upon their expectations, and that future generations are not present at the ballot box. (2) Article 50 wasn’t mentioned in the referendum question. Perhaps people had voted differently, if the question had them made more aware of the intricacies involved. Words like Leave or Remain are like going on a holiday instead of what is involved. (3) British politics might have chosen the path “okay, we are leaving, but let us first decide how we would want to leave, before we invoke article 50 and submit our own proposal to the EU”. This is another path than what is happening now, first invoking article 50 and gradually discovering what it means. I don’t think that people were aware of such paths. (4) Do not assume that it would be so useful to delve in the multitude of possibilities. It suffices to observe that a complex matter was falsely presented as a binary. Point. (5) My suggestion is that the UK first drops its system of voting per district, and adopts the Dutch method of proportional representation for the House of Commons. Democracy in the UK is quite distorted and rather useless to discuss, except when you are a professional UK politics researcher or commentator and might make a living from turning nonsense into sense. The interview with Protesilaos Stavrou is actually quite useful for this: https://protesilaos.com/colignatus-brexit-referenda-interview
The question itself was simple enough to understand. What the author seems to be doing is trying to load it with leading assumptions. Yet the Leave vote was clearly a rejection of Received Wisdom for being incorrect.
For example, the author, like Received Wisdom generally, is convinced that a Leave vote would lead Scotland to become independent. One of my many reasons for voting Leave was precisely that a Leave vote would greatly weaken the case for Scottish independence.
Quite how the Establishment missed the notion that the case for Scottish independence rested on both rUK and iScotland being in the Single Market astounded me. And do you really think that the Scottish Independence campaign would have been flayed alive on the question of whether an iScotland would use the pound, the euro or a new currency if the UK had been averagely integrated into the EU and thus had adopted the euro anyway?
Well, it’s only a year on, but all evidence so far indicates that Received Wisdom was wrong on the question of a Leave vote causing Scottish independence.
The electorate did not need to be guided by The Enlightened Ones; The Enlightened Ones needed to be kicked up the arse because since 2008 they have generally been the living embodiment of Thomas Kuhn’s concept that people cling onto discredited ways of thought long, long after their beliefs have become unjustifiable.
All I can say is I’m so glad I’m not an intellectual if it means analysing every decision and choice I’m faced with.
Regarding the EU Referendum I was asked 2 questions, not 3 or 4. I chose to put my cross in the box to leave. It was a simple choice, I’d gleaned as much information as I could from various sources so I maintain that I DID know what I was voting for. Obviously not all the consequences were known and are still not known until all negotiations are over. My choice was emphatically clear to myself though, I wanted out of the EU, regardless of what the consequences would be.
My decision hasn’t altered and all the “what if’s” isn’t going to change that.
Sometimes you should just accept things on face value, stop reading too much into it. I know that you intellectual types think you know better than Joe Public but in this case you’re only muddying the waters.
There were only 2 questions!
Max that was my point exactly “There were only 2 questions!” I find it absurb that Remainers are slicing and dicing data and arguing at every possible level in the hope to make the outcome invalid.
Thomas Colignatus (and all the embittered remainers on here).
No, I do not agree that there was a third choice (or any permutation of choices), there were two choices, remain in the EU (single market), or leave the EU (single market).
The choice was quite simple and everyone knew what they were voting for. Continuing to trade with the EU once we have left is a different matter altogether.
Well, with the single market focus that you have chosen there is a very obvious third option: leave the EU and stay in the single market, like EEA Norway. That was one of the options canvassed during the campaign. It falls within the Leave the EU box. And it seems likely that some of the millions of Leave voters wanted that.
More generally, there were loads of different options thrown out for what Leave might look like. It seems improbable that when Theresa May finally unveils the deal all Leave voters will say that it is what they wanted.
Hence the need for a referendum on the terms once we all know what the question is.
@Haohao: Please do not misstate that I would be convinced that Scotland will split off. I merely point to the complexity of the issue. Michael explained that he uses binary choices, and for individuals this is okay, but for for the collective preference this is different.
PM. You don’t seem to be open to the argument in the article. I am wondering what will help. (1) Perhaps you can write a blog article to explain that it is useful to Leave in order to keep Scotland in the UK ? At any cost, whatever Leave might mean. Or perhaps you already did so, so that you can provide a link ? If your logic would be deficient it might encourage the Scots to become independent a.s.a.p. so I hope that you have a strong argument indeed. (2) Please explain who those Enlightened Ones are and why they need to be kicked at delicate places. I suppose that this isn’t prime minister Theresa May, who originally was against Brexit but who now leads it. I hope that you with your more inverse logic already have thought of the possibility that May targets for such a hard Brexit that the UK electorate will decide to Remain after all ? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/25/exclusive-leaked-recording-shows-what-theresa-may-really-thinks-about-brexit
@Thomas, by suggesting that a break up of the UK would be a possibility you would be leading the voter, I’d say.
If the Scots want to leave, then I would hope that the rUK would wish them all the best, give them reasonable help in establishing themselves, and have a very close relationship with them in the future. Plainly the union of European nations was undermining the union of British nations, and I think that the latter is a more viable union than the former. It was one or t’other. I’m quite sure no Scot would change their mind about whether they favour independence based on any whizzy logic I might come up with. The structural shift of the UK will over time, though (at least that’s my bet on the future).
You seem to assume that what you call a ‘hard Brexit’ would come at an amazing cost. I don’t accept that. The economic projections of economic catastrophe immediately after the vote were plainly daft and caused by economists spending too much time with homo economicus and not enough with homo sapiens. People who believe terrible harm would be caused by what they call ‘hard Brexit’ seem to be mesmerised by imagery of cars crashing, people falling off a cliff, someone cutting their own flesh etc. etc. It doesn’t seem to owe much to serious analysis. On WTO rules our GDP might be a year or so’s trend growth ‘behind’ where it otherwise would be. Well, it’s not exactly the end of the world. And that’s if we decide to spend all our time sitting on the naughty step and thinking about that bad thing that we did.
As for ‘the Enlightened Ones’, eh, that was a silly phrase. It just meant the kind of people who go ‘the current system is appallingly flawed, but I have no imagination about how to fix these flaws and I produce specious reasoning to prop up this status quo that I no longer believe in. I have a sideline in menacing readings from the Book of Revelations. If you disagree with my preposterous premises and lousy logic then you are clearly a monstrously defective human being, because I have a swanky CV. I am Logic Incarnate, so ner.’
@Haohao: Thank you for your clarification. It makes it easier for me to see how you perceive all of this. Let me mention that the situation of Scotland now is quite different from 2014. In the former Scottish referendum, the EU tended to reject independence and make the situation more difficult for Scotland, because e.g. Spain would not want the independence of Catalunya either. Now, the UK is leaving, and the EU would tend to be supportive of Scotland remaining. The prospect for Scotland leaving the UK and applying for EU membership is much better now. Once the City grows aware that the EU wouldn’t want a repeat of offshore banking like with Switzerland, City banks might move to EU-Ireland or EU-Scotland rather than elsewhere in Europe. PM. I trust that you agree that Theresa May is not in the Book of Revelations.
@Thomas, the world does not revolve around what the EU wants. Really. There are many other considerations involved.
Personally I find it unlikely that Scotland will become independent and an EU member — even the SNP are now only proposing EFTA-EEA membership for the foreseeable future after independence. I also find it unlikely that the City would be dwarfed by any EU-inspired moves to Dublin or Edinburgh.
Theresa May might not be in the Book of Revelations, but I’ve never seen her and Emperor Palpatine in the same room together.
A very interesting article, and some interesting if predictable, responses. People who got the result they wanted will of course treat any suggestion that the process that got them there was flawed. Let me just address those people here who were leavers, and claim a Remain result would not have been questioned. There was a remain result in the 1970s , and frankly, the people who wanted out of the EU haven’t shut up since. I respect 100% their democratic right to do so. I think my own democratic right to continue making my case should be similarly respected.
This isn’t really the subject of Thomas’ paper but its apparent that this view – that the Leave vote ends the debate – is held by many of the people making comments.
There seems to me to be a question of when issues with a flawed democratic process can be raised. Do so before a vote, and one can be painted as ‘running scared’ or ‘getting excuses in early’. Make them after the event and one is a ‘sore loser’. But I hope we can all agree about some potential vote in the future, none of us here know what about and which I might be on the same side as some of the Leave commenters here – That we want to find a method that accurately reflects the wishes of the people. If there are flaws that prevent this, we need an adult way of resolving these even before the debate on the issue concerned begins. We need to decide the rules of the game before sides are picked. It is a shame of course that is not commonly done.
If I may address a point to Thomas, you do mention in passing the AV referendum. A question occurred to me, even before Jun 23 last year, how differentially constituted the two questions were.
In both cases, the question was ‘Do you wish to vote from the status quo’. For the AV referendum, the destination was chosen – it wasn’t even the destination many pro-reformers wanted but it was the only one offered. He question was ‘Here is AV, do you want it?’ All alternatives were rolled up into a No vote.
The EU referendum one side had one option – Do you wish to remain in the EU? All alternatives were rolled up in the ‘Leave’ vote. I appreciate Thomas’ point that avoiding the words Yes and No was good, but the question did come down ‘do you like this, if not, vote that.
Everyone above claiming ‘yes I know what I meant when I voted ‘Leave’ needs to reflect, but I suspect won’t, if what they ‘knew’ is the same as what their Leave voting neighbour knew. Since you were voting for the ‘bucket’ option, I suspect you will find differences. I respect you that you knew what you were voting for (though I’m not convinced you fully understood all the consequences)
Is it possible that the remain voters had no more clue what they were voting for than the leavers?Is the future not a book yet to be written?
@Chris Read: There is the magnificent word “neverendum” coined by Josh Freed in relation to the Quebec question. In this column on April 1 hoaxes, he also refers to the wonderful BBC spaghetti tree case. http://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/josh-freed-reality-has-fooled-us-out-of-april-fools-dayhttp://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/josh-freed-reality-has-fooled-us-out-of-april-fools-day I would say that the UK electorate nowadays knows as much about voting theory as they knew about spagghetti back then.
@Jacob Jonker: Potentially no one had a clue. The point that I make based upon voting theory is that the crucial error is that not all relevant options were on the ballot, so that we have “garbage in, garbage out”. NB. Above you state:”One can be certain you would not offer your science in defence of Leavers if the result had gone the other way.” I resent this and ask you to take this back. My analysis on voting theory dates back from 1990, and I have been studying this consistently. The issue of the Brexit referendum question is only an application, though an important one. I took the effort to explain the situation, thinking that the UK electorate might be served with a view from science. It will not do to change the subject and assign ulterior motives.
Now then, Thomas, I have been following the world since well before 1990. Although I am not a political scientist, I have as much right to a political and philosophical opinion as anyone.As to my hypothesis that had the result gone the other way, your would not offer your science in defence of the Leavers, which you wish me to take back, well, impossible to prove, since another referendum in the same vein is not likely just yet.However, your argument is from my perspective in defence of remainers.This is nothing to do with the number of years you have been developing your theories.So there, if I am wrong on this you will have to wear it.If I find in due course that I was mistaken, I will make effort to let you know, and you may tell the world.Sorry mate, I stand firm in that regard.
@Jacob Jonker: (1) You are entitled to your opinion, obviously. This article and discussion however concerns a contribution from voting theory. Your claim of not being a political scientist might indicate that you are not interested in voting theory, which is the topic of discussion. Thus you are confusing the discussion, and this must be regretted, also since it takes needless time from others who might not be very interested in your personal opinion. (2) There is a distinction between a counterfactual and slander. At this location I can only express my hope that this readership here is aware of that distinction. (3) Below, on the comment of David Beach, you refer to “this sad case of subterfuge, academic theorising and after-the-fact recriminating” as well. I infer that this again isn’t based upon studying voting theory but only your opinion. You are way out of line.
Maybe the UK should of just left the EU first then waited a couple of years to have the referendum and asked if we wanted to remain independent of the EU.
That would of been the fairest way as that is way in which we joined the EU, nobody was asked to join, only asked 2 years after the UK joined if we wished to remainn in the EEC (later renamed the EU) with only 4 other countries.
My M.P., Gavin Barwell, would not engage with me on questions regarding the possible break up of the U.K. if, as I pointed out to him, the referendum result could divide the constituent countries. Nor would he admit that there was a chance of a “Let’s give them a bloody nose” vote, often the outcome of a binary question.
Mr. Barwell, a government minister, refused to accept – or understand – that the Northern Ireland Good Friday Agreement could be at risk.
He did, however, assure me that the referendum was advisory.
@David Beach: The referendum was advisory, as also the court case of Jolyon Maugham established. This is as it should be. This situation provides another example of the distinction between voting theory and law that neglects voting theory. A lawyer might say that voters should not worry because ultimately parliament will decide anyway. In voting theory, the voter must develop an expectation about how parliament will deal with the advisory referendum outcome. Now in this case, parliament interpreted the outcome as the “will of the people”, and thus surrendered its own mandate. Thus, apparently, voters should have been wise enough to expect that this might happen. Obviously, if Theresa May had stuck to her original pro-EU and anti-Brexit position, then she would have rejected the advisory referendum outcome, and would have had to deal with a storm of protest. She might not have made PM. Thus your MP Gavin Barwell gave an accurate description of the legal situation but seems to have been deficient in his understanding of voting theory.
Was I dreaming when I read that the Government of the day promised that they would deliver what the people decided in the referendum?
The politics of politics at work.A well-funded minority seeks to overturn the Brexit referendum.It does not augur well for the future if they succeed.Parliamentary democracy is being eaten out from within as we look on at this sad case of subterfuge, academic theorising and after-the-fact recriminating- They thought they had it bagged.
They thought they had it bagged obviously does not refer to Thomas here.I note the line of discussion on that score has been terminated.I also note that Thomas has not, apparently, read all of my other comments on this debate.I will express my view on political scientists elsewhere.I will not be brow-beat by academically appointed experts.My criticisms in this debate concern the Brexit referendum which is done and dusted, and the way voting theory, in this instance, appears very much to be used as a means to undermine the result of that particular referendum.As I point out above, in another comment, the deed is done.The political process has been gone through, the questions put and debated at length.If Thomas had made it more clear that his argument in relation to this referendum in question was hypothetical, as an example for next time, fine, but that is not the case.I leave it to other commenters to disagree with me and state that Thomas does indeed fully accept the result of the Brexit referendum.
@ Jacob Jonker and all: I have looked at all comments again, and find that this discussion has been rewarding in sum. Everyone can have his or her opinion on this of course. My own take is that my comment helps to clarify the situation on top of the article itself. Brexit is going to happen. Either with a negotiation deal or a “hard” one without it. A parliamentarian vote or referendum on a negotiation deal, with the option to remain otherwise, with 27 member states consenting, is improbable to happen, since that is not the meaning of article 50. The ECJ is likely to take this line. This isn’t at issue. Only at issue is the observation that the Brexit referendum question has been scientifically unwarranted. A judgement on this requires the study of voting theory. As said in this discussion, Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem has caused a lot of confusion in voting theory, and thus this study is not clear-cut as one might wish. Yet, I have given the links that provide the clarity that my own studies have generated.
This referred to my comment Thomas Colignatus May 18, 2017 at 9:07 pm – Reply to Michael, I put this between brackets but apparently this caused its deletion ?
Bravo!
“Brexit is going to happen. Either with a negotiation deal or a “hard” one without it.”
Which is not up to us – so how could that have been put on the ballot paper?
Of course the government – having invoked Article 50, as we voted for – will negotiate the best trade arrangements with the EU, as it will with Canada and New Zealand, and just as it will negotiate the best terms it can with its supplier of office stationery: did we need to vote to tell them to do any of that?
Perhaps we should also have been consulted on whether or not to negotiate, or just wait the two years and take the default terms – but proposing that would have been a remarkable departure from precedent, in the unlikely event we had actually voted for the latter. We’ve always trusted smaller details like that to our elected representatives, as will be the case here: we vote for the government to invoke Article 50, then leave them to sort out the details.
Either way, it seems a stretch to claim the vote was somehow flawed by not pre-determining those details. We were not choosing between 3 different options, we were choosing between two: invoke A50, or not.
Thomas Colignatus – Try not to take some of the comments on this thread personally, they are not personal attacks on you or your integrity. Some people, myself included, are sick and tired of being lectured to by politicians / intellectuals / academics (many of whom seem to serve no useful purpose to man nor beast) who believe that they know better than we do what is good for us and how we should conduct ourselves.
You, as are we all, are entitled to your opinion but it is only your opinion and carries no more weight than anyone else’s.
Our lives are not an academic exercise or an opportunity to prove or disprove someone’s theory.
@Karl: I definitively don’t take some comments personally, and have responded to Jacob Jonker’s slander ”One can be certain you would not offer your science in defence of Leavers if the result had gone the other way.” as if I would be partisan on this. I would wish that you would criticise Jonker on this slander as well, rather than suggesting that I would take things personally as if I would not be able to distinguish the one from the other. Jonker now adds a line of defence: “If Thomas had made it more clear that his argument in relation to this referendum in question was hypothetical, as an example for next time, fine, but that is not the case” which is bonkers too. The theory of voting applies, point. For hypothetical cases indeed too, but also for Brexit. When there is “garbage in, garbage out” then it remains correct that there is garbage. Jonker wants to live with the garbage and starts throwing it at the messenger who tells him that he is living with garbage. For other readers of this weblog, he is throwing a wrench in the machine. There is no reason why science would should put up with this disrepectful behaviour. Your statement “Our lives are not an academic exercise or an opportunity to prove or disprove someone’s theory” is obviously correct. I can only invite you to study voting theory so that you can check what I have been reporting to you.
Thomas, if I may intrude upon your tete-a-tete with Karl, you think like a Dutchman born and bred.Even if I happen to be wrong on this, please do get off your high academic horse.Try to think cosmopolitan or even internationalist.Your academic huffing and puffing and standing upon theories are, ah, not helping your academic career, surely, nor the advance of your theory.You know, when I was still in short trousers, in the fifties, relatively few would go through het gymnasium to uni, and fewer still would become academicians propre.Since then, university attendance has ballooned, the number of papers written by students under the tutelage of professors has multiplied exponentially many times over again and again.These days, a degree means next-to-nothing and the standing of academia is not improved thereby in the estimation of many who do the university of life without the benefit of university studies.
This, to put any and all academic theories in perspective, not to belittle your theory, which you have been working on since 1990.I have been working on my theories for sixty years, and my practice for some years fewer.You would do well to study some of my comments in depth.I also think you have too thin a skin for robust political debate, but I could be wrong there.I also could be wrong about your academic perspective, which, imo, is narrow to be dealing with political issues, which voting theory and the overturning of results of ligit government-called, legally written and properly held voting is.Whatever your academic overtures may hold in this matter, the fact that you seek to overturn, my words, the result of the Brexit referendum is political, no ifs or buts.Where in the Netherlands is an academic versed in political science who would wish to argue that point?You are in a political game, Thomas.Don’t tell me otherwise.
Hear, hear!
At Karl just there, exactly.
Thomas Colignatus – Jonker is entitled to his opinion and that is how I interpreted the part of his comment to which you refer and why on earth would you wish I would criticise him? why would I do that?
“Garbage in, Garbage out” is just another proverb and is no more accurate than any other proverb and no, I don’t agree that there is garbage, that is just your opinion. I am unclear what you mean by he (Jonker) is throwing a wrench in the machine, it would be helpful if you clarified this. Is voting theory a “science”?
@Karl: (1) You stated before: “Some people, myself included, are sick and tired of being lectured to (…)” My article doesn’t lecture to you. It only provides information that you might not have had. You are free to read it or not. If you read it, do not say that it is me who is lecturing to you. I have been here to answer questions. Do not change the topic, and do not turn something into politics when it isn’t. (2) In the English speaking world there is the distinction between humanities and science. In Holland there is the distinction between alpha, beta and gamma. Voting theory has aspects of these all. But voting theory is scientific in the sense that it respects the distinction between Is and Ought. One can discuss values that might cause the adoption of a particular voting rule, but this should not be understood as some recommendation of such a rule. The core of voting theory is mathematics, and an example is Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, though beware of its interpretation. Apart from my book, you might want to look into Patty & Penn 2014 and Mackie 2003. (3) Jonker had a comment targeted at me personally and you suggested that I should not take this personally. You really didn’t see this ? Instead of treating me as a fool for not seeing this it would have been consistent of you to criticise him, that is, if you really would want that this discussion remains on content. I find it hard to believe that you don’t see this, even once it already has been explained to you. (4) Why do you find it necessary to answer with your personal opinion that there is no “garbage in, garbage out” situation, when voting theory indicates that this is the case ? When science shows that the Earth is a globe, why do you feel the need to propound as your personal opinion to state that the Earth is flat, as if readers of the weblog text would be interested in your personal opinion ? (5) I will no longer respond to what Karl or Jacob Jonker purport to contribute to this discussion. There are standards.
Utterly fascinating.LSE: London School of Economics and POLITICAL Science ac uk / brexit.A blog about voting theory claiming the Brexit referendum was/is deficient.The blog and the train of comments there for all to see.What is it that academics, using the plural so I cannot be accused again of ad hominem slanderous comments, cannot see about the political ramifications of their political theorising and throwing their academic hat into the political ring thus?About a voting theory and an academic arrow it may be, but this blog above and the explanations given by Thomas up to his climb-down, retreat, call it what you will, I am not academic enough to know the precise terminology, are indeed political.Am I missing something?Thomas is put out by personal criticism?Must I criticise the entire academic world for a blog written by Thomas?Get a life, philosophically speaking, Thomas, or only publish in academic journals if you wish not to be as offended as you obviously are.
Unbelievable hypocricy considering the way the UK was taken into the the EU, named the EEC at the time the UK was made a member and had only a few other member countries.
Thomas Colignatus – (1) I was generalising, I did not say that you were lecturing me or anyone else, so please do not accuse me of doing so.
I am not sure what you mean by “do not turn something into politics when it isn’t”, your statement is to oblique for me.
(2) So, is voting theory a science or not?
(3) I was generalising, I did not refer to Jonker or any other commentator.
(4) As I said, Garbage in, Garbage out is a proverb and in my opinion is, therefore, no more accurate than any other proverb. What my comment has to do with the world being round is utterly beyond me. Whether readers of the weblog text would be interested in my personal opinion is neither here nor there and I am unclear why you the need make this statement, therefore I would appreciate your clarification on this matter at your earliest convenience.
(5) You are of course free to decide which commentators you will, and will not, respond to on here. However, I am unclear why you have singled out myself as being one of the commentators on here that you have stated you will not respond to, therefore please could you clarify why you have singled me out and in what way my comments differ to other comments on here, therefore I would appreciate your clarification on this matter at your earliest convenience.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Last year I was asked if I would contemplate taking on the management of Brexit. It was a hypothetical question. No one is actually going to offer me the job. I had no qualms in stating that, given the complexity, uncertainties, risks and costs, I would hope that I would have the good sense to turn down such an offer. With the recommendation to the client that they should not to undertake such a reckless, costly and strategically stupid project.
So, that’s my going-in position. As other strategists will have picked up on.
There are many aspects of complexity surrounding Brexit, and the more we advance along the road to ‘running away from the Europe Union’, the more complexities we dig up.
BREXIT: The Conceit of Remainers
http://goodstrat.com/2017/08/01/the-conceit-of-remainers/
I voted leave and still stand by my decision. However, I sympathise with the arguments being made in this article.
The main thing which has come to light for me since the referendum is just how complex our current relationship is with the EU. Which aspects of our relationship are rooted in our ‘membership’ and which aspects simply represent typical relationships between independent countries? There are so many different interpretations of what ‘leaving the EU’ means that the idea of being given two options – ‘no’ or ‘yes’ – is meaningless unless the consequences of the two are elaborated on.
What potentially should have happened is for the UK to have agreed some kind of ‘draft leave deal’ with the EU and then voting on whether we take the deal or remain.
“What potentially should have happened is for the UK to have agreed some kind of ‘draft leave deal’ with the EU and then voting on whether we take the deal or remain.”
A nice idea – a variant of what Cameron did, in fact, of allowing the EU to improve their offering before we held the vote in the hopes it would swing things Remain’s way (which almost worked, but not quite). This way round, though, wouldn’t work: the EU would have an even bigger vested interest in making the alternative to membership as unpalatable as possible to ensure it was rejected. As it is, there is a strong subtext of “punishment” as the EU tries to make it as awkward and expensive as possible, perhaps hoping to force us to back down and remain after all!
What a curious argument you make, you credit Parliament as the correct decision maker and then arrogantly state they made a wrong decision because you doubt they understand voting theory. Those words could so easily come out of the mouth of Sir Humphrey in Yes Prime Minister which of course is fiction, more dangerously however such words do come from Messrs Juncker et al. that alone is good reason to remove the superfluous and unaccountable layer of government that is the EU.
It is almost beyond parody really. A Remain-dominated Parliament reluctantly allowed a referendum, in which the Leave side was out-spent by around 2:1 thanks to the government’s £9m intervention on Remain’s side – and when, despite being handed every possible advantage, Remain still managed to lose, rather than reconsider the appeal of their position to the public and accept that perhaps it was flawed, they double down, insisting that the process still wasn’t sufficiently skewed in their favour, as if perhaps some Russian Facebook posts outweighed Barack Obama’s overt intervention, as if a 93p online ad spend outweighed our own government’s £9m interference … absurd.
Imagine if the Remain campaign had put all this effort into reforming the EU to earn it public support and acceptance instead!
The vote was an advisory vote about leaving the political union. It was the expectation when the enabling bill was being debated, that the questions of cost, etc, would get taken into account during a costed debate over how and whether to proceed, within the dual responsibility of their constituents and the good of the country as a whole. The expectation was that a narrow vote would either result in calls for reform or an ultra-soft deal. “No Deal” was talked of as being a vanishingly small probability
The fact that the electorate was wilfully mislead about leaving being immediately cash positive AND that a debate on whether the damage outweighed a narrow vote is the question. It was a great piece of advertising spin, though.
I don’t think the leave campaign was fair, accurate or truthful. But that shouldn’t have mattered if parliament had done their job as intended. And that is what the government has been allowed to get away with.
The Remain/Leave decision process has two fatal flaws built into it. These render it so unfit for purpose that it is wrong to impose it on the UK electorate, and it may even be illegal.
Flaw 1. The industry standard process for making major decisions (the Due Diligence sandwich) has been flouted by reversing the order of its parts. This has had a catastrophic effect on the outcome, and is akin to reaching a final verdict before a criminal case has even been heard. This flaw on its own is enough to render the decision process broken.
Flaw 2. The referendum was constructed and used in a way that forced it outside the natural limits for any referendum to perform fairly and reliably. It still reached a “result”, of course, but this was unsafe, and thus undemocratic. This flaw, like the first one, is enough, in itself, to render the decision process broken.
However, we could even now get back onto an acceptable decision process path (the 3-part “sandwich”). We must accept we have done Part 1 (Choice: Gather Info, or Stop), and have (almost) done Part 2 (Gather info and sort “Last Brexit Deal (LBD)” standing), and accept that we have NOT YET actually done Part 3 (Choice: Do LBD (then Stop), or Stop). [Nb, there is no “best of three” as info does not change hereafter]. Thus getting back on track would now be easy, and would CONFIRM democracy, NOT threaten it.
Having a Constitution that is not written is no excuse for making constitutional change by using process that is flagrantly substandard. Our decision process so far is so bad that we are a laughing stock. Let’s correct that NOW.
What a convoluted mess we have made for ourselves. I feel, for ratification, the same referendum, with exactly the same wording, should be run again before we actually trigger Article 50. There should be no campaigning from either side, no leafleting, no biased broadcasts, no debates. We’ve all heard enough debate, this rerun of the referendum could be organised and staged within a month. Any attempt to influence anyone’s opinions in the meantime, via mainstream or social media, should be regarded as a contempt. If after all that the result is the same then we leave, deal or no deal, on March 29. If not, we go back to the EU for reinstatement, which their court has already said they would grant, and to negotiate a better deal for the UK from within. In my lifetime, three governments have gone back to the people after a shorter period in power than the time that’s elapsed since the referendum. Those who talk about democracy betrayal are charlatans – people change their minds in every democracy. If not, Churchill would still be Prime Minister. We have a statute of limitations on expressions of public opinion – these should apply as well to referenda.
The original question was all wrong. We weren’t give the other information we should have been given to truly understand the severity of the possible outcome. Did Theresa May’s people do this deliberately? Probably! It’s certainly give the Government plenty to do since asking it! Another Referendum is the only way to sort this debacle out!
Article 50 is binary. But, Leave portrayed it as allowing for a middle ground of a “close” relationship which is just the rejigging of what we have. Here is the kind of legislation which should have governed the referendum and which would have addressed clearly what was being voted on, and which all should only have been voted on after a general election when parties could set out whether they wanted full withdrawal, remaining or some middle ground: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6gpbo5cxbiyf6sx/A%20proposed%20Act%20to%20give%20effect%20to%20the%20requirement%20for%20clarity%20in%20a%20referendum%20on%20withdrawal%20from%20the%20European%20Union%20%281%29.pdf?dl=0
It is beyond belief the lengths that losers will go to. The Form was made Simple and Clear.If you really cannot understand such basic questions,then simply vote to remain=No Change.How dare “Losers” slide in “With a deal”. I was fully aware of the facts and voted to Remain based upon probably the best of 2 bad options.Now I would not dream to remain.I lost. Period. Politicians;Lawyers including judges are traditionally not to be trusted.Get Real. Some incorrect claim written on the side of a red bus is desperation from all of these losers.Both sides have lied for years. WE were given the chance to make the CLEAR decision.WE did and now are being held to ransom by a bunch of either not very impressive MPs,or a bunch of “Word Smith ” Lawyers/QCs.
Farage and Boris are the only leaders to be trusted.
THe peoples vote should be respected.