London mayor Sadiq Khan calls for second Brexit vote | Hacker News Reader

London mayor Sadiq Khan calls for second Brexit vote

bbc.com

23 pointsboulos16 comments

What I don't understand is why wasn't the referendum invalidated after it became clear that:

- The leave campaign misinformed the public (e.g. the UK would have £350million per week to spend on the NHS when leaving the EU) [0]

- Public was potentially manipulated by 'marketing' tactics developed by Cambridge Analytica [1]

And why weren't the people responsible for the leave campaign held accountable or even prosecuted for misleading the public.

On these grounds alone a 2nd vote should be held.

[0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350...

[1] https://www.dw.com/en/what-role-did-cambridge-analytica-play...

As someone who voted to remain - I do feel that I'm starting to think "Just get on with it!". At this point in time I would rather the country tries to deal with the bigger issues, such as climate change, TAX avoidence and social inequality. I do realise some of these bigger issues are best dealt with when part of a union - but the voters decided.

All this polictal BS is distracting us...

Thank you for this mature point of view.

This is what makes me dislike politicians, when they do not respect the vote of the public when asked.

I would vote for leaving the EU any day, if given the chance. I also would be very, very angry if the politicians wouldn't respect that outcome if it got to be the case.

What outcome should be respected though? Nobody voted for Chequers. Which, obviously, isn't acceptable to the EU either in its current form.

A lot of people voted for £350m a week extra for the NHS, continued unfettered access to EU markets (read: things don't get scarcer or more expensive, and my job is safe) while restricting EU immigration, and absolutely no change to the status of Northern Ireland and its border with the Republic. Exactly none of that will come to pass.

This whole fiasco is happening because David Cameron took a reckless gamble with people's lives to shut up some backbenchers in his party. That shit makes me dislike politicians.

Legally, Brexit was more like an opinion poll. The proper response would have been to recognize the slim majority's interest in leaving, negotiate a Brexit deal before committing to leaving-no-matter-what, and then put that detailed deal to the voters in a legally binding referendum so they could actually know what they're voting for.

“Both these scenarios are a million miles from what was promised during the referendum campaign, only further exposing the lies and mistruths sold to the public," he wrote in the paper.

If Brexit is not what Britains voted for, then carrying through with this is against the will of the people.

The role of politicians in a representative democracy is to act as a moderating force against the tyranny of the majority.

The pro-brexit camp has been shown to be full of lying propagandists. Another vote seems necessary.

Either you don't trust the people or you do.

At a certain point, you should let it go and let the British people see the result of their actions.

There was no legally binding vote in 2016 on UK leaving the EU.

Two years is a long time. The U.S. House of Representatives has two-year terms. Do you think it would be appropriate not to hold midterm elections because the people have already voted and their votes should be respected? Or is two years long enough to permit the question to be put to voters again?

I agree. When a fair election is held, the results must be honored.

If the outcome is truly that unpopular, then the opposing side should re-group and put it to another vote through the same channels that set up the first election. To do otherwise is anti-democratic, IMHO.

> When a fair election is held, the results must be honored.

Yes, when a /fair/ election is held. However as of late most elections are heavily influenced by outside forces.

That's what the article is calling for, another vote. Presumably their parliament would have to authorize it--the same as they did the first vote.

The 2016 referendum was neither fair nor election.

What frustrates me is the low threshold required for the original vote. 50%. You can't change the US constitution without 2/3rds majority. Of all the things wrong with US politics, this is one thing they got right.

There's also criticism of a second vote as undermining the will of the people (by running as many votes as required to get the outcome desired by the govt). Well, my thoughts on that are: If it's such a contentious issue that the general populous is itself lacks overwhelming commitment to the proposal, then maybe it's not such a good idea in the first place. It's too fundamental of an issue.

(I intended to vote leave as a protest vote against the EU, but ultimately voted remain when the polls showed it too close for comfort. I'm not entirely happy with how the EU operates, but would prefer we worked within the EU to address the issues)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com