The Student Room Group
Chapel, Keele University
Keele University
Keele

Scroll to see replies

Original post by SudanesePrince
Kinda need a "don't know" option,

There are significant drawbacks and benefits of both options. But I think government by referendum is fundamentally flawed in a way.

Britain has really catch 22 it's self. Gg


Dear SundanesePrince:

Could you elaborate on "flawed"?

Yours, Ken
Chapel, Keele University
Keele University
Keele
Dear Readers:

Given the responses to date, I was interested if readers might consider engaging in two tasks. First, decide how the referendum in 2016 could have been worded or constructed in order to make people more certain about the implications or meaning of the vote? Second, if the UK had a second referendum decide what it would be composed of. Describe just how would it be worded and constructed?

Yours, Ken
Original post by Keele University Guest Lecturer
Dear Doonesbury and others:

Abstaining is a problem in any democratic process. Having said that, some people maintain that abstaining is a right and that it can represent an actual perspective (i.e., I do not support or endorse any of the options). Indeed, this is one reason that I am concerned about the statements by the PM. If the government choose to have a second referendum I hope that people will not abandon the democratic process in the UK, including the referendum process. These mechanisms are the only legitimate way people can affect their government.

Yours, Ken


Rather than abstain/not turn up to vote I would rather people strike through their voting paper like they do in the GE.

Original post by Keele University Guest Lecturer
Dear Readers:

Given the responses to date, I was interested if readers might consider engaging in two tasks. First, decide how the referendum in 2016 could have been worded or constructed in order to make people more certain about the implications or meaning of the vote? Second, if the UK had a second referendum decide what it would be composed of. Describe just how would it be worded and constructed?

Yours, Ken

I feel there was limited transparency in both campaigns.

I think the marketing campaigns for the leave campaign were outrageous. Big promises with no factual evidence.

The remain campaign was too simple and I feel, actually lazy. Communicating that the status quo would be upheld when people were clearly hungry for a change and so voted in opposition to remaining.

I don't feel the campaigns were personalised enough. They should have been adapted based on the issues/ concerns different strands of society have and also on a regional basis.

Finally, there was no communication about the outcomes of some of EU legislation. A lot of what is offered in the workplace on a statutory basis is influenced by European law - maternity/ paternity/ TUPE (job protection during mergers and takeovers) / working time regulations all come from Europe..... they have benefited hundreds upon thousands of UK employees.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by She-Ra
Rather than abstain/not turn up to vote I would rather people strike through their voting paper like they do in the GE.


I feel there was limited transparency in both campaigns.

I think the marketing campaigns for the leave campaign were outrageous. Big promises with no factual evidence.

The remain campaign was too simple and I feel, actually lazy. Communicating that the status quo would be upheld when people were clearly hungry for a change and so voted in opposition to remaining.

I don't feel the campaigns were personalised enough. They should have been adapted based on the issues/ concerns different strands of society have and also on a regional basis.

Finally, there was no communication about the outcomes of some of EU legislation. A lot of what is offered in the workplace on a statutory basis is influenced by European law - maternity/ paternity/ TUPE (job protection during mergers and takeovers) / working time regulations all come from Europe..... they have benefited hundreds upon thousands of UK employees.

Wow you slay she rah :eek:
Original post by Medrat
Call for a second referendum are hugely undermining of public trust because they are changing the parameters of decision making from real life to fantasy. In real life, people work with the information that they have at the time, not with hindsight. Everyone voted in good faith based on the information that was available to them at the time. That's how the world works. We can all live our lives retrospectively, waiting for hindsight before decididng if an event happened or not, but that would be fantasyland. Just get on with it.

Dear Medrat:

Thank you for your response. Have you changed your mind regarding a decision? Do you think that people or government are allowed to change their mind regarding a decision? Just some simple questions.

Yours, Ken
Reply 85


Of course people and governments can change their mind - but only if they announce in advance that this is how the decision making is going to proceed. So, they'd need to state something like, "Please make a decision now but bear in mind that we reserve the right to change it retrospectively by applying the hindsight rule at an unspecified future date depending on the outcome of this current decision". Anything else undermines public trust in the system.
Lol this is the worst research ever.

The poor guy is trying to do work on trust and all anyone wants to do is have the same arguments about Brexit over and over and over.
Reply 87
Well, I've answered his questions. He asked for new wording = see above. He asked if second referendum will undermine trust. Answer = yes. Job done.
Reply 88
Original post by Medrat


Of course people and governments can change their mind - but only if they announce in advance that this is how the decision making is going to proceed. So, they'd need to state something like, "Please make a decision now but bear in mind that we reserve the right to change it retrospectively by applying the hindsight rule at an unspecified future date depending on the outcome of this current decision". Anything else undermines public trust in the system.


Do you issue that caveat every time you tell someone you've made a decision?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Yes. Because the majority of voters chose to leave, it is undemocratic.
Reply 90
Original post by Doonesbury
Do you issue that caveat every time you tell someone you've made a decision?

Posted from TSR Mobile

No, because everyone understands the rule that you make the best decision that you can with the best available information at the time. It's a tacit undrstanding that does not need to be explained because it's a physical impossibility. What's happening now is that people are trying to go back and retsrospectively undo a historical decision. It's passed. There's no going back. That actual event can't be undone. A new event can be created but you can't use the benefit of hindsight to undo a historical event. It's pure fantasy. I believe that's why, in law, there's a statute of limitations, to prevent exactly this. The electorate trust their governments (well, ...) so using the benefit of hindsight to alter the course of events needs to be stipulated upfront, before anyone actually votes on anything. .
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by Trinculo
Lol this is the worst research ever.

The poor guy is trying to do work on trust and all anyone wants to do is have the same arguments about Brexit over and over and over.

Dear Trinculo:
Thank you for your response. I am uncertain what you mean. The purpose of the Blog (see The Conversations) is to bring social psychological research to bear on the PM's statement regarding a second referendum. The Blog is not research itself. Overall, the Blog points out the conflicting quality of trust regarding the referendum. In practice, this results in strong divisions within the UK and even for individuals themselves (i.e., they are conflicted). The Blog and my involvement in the Student Room s guided by the premise that recognizing the dilemma of trust (regarding Brexit) will help us to find a resolution to it.

Yours, Ken
Reply 92
Original post by Medrat
No, because everyone understands the rule that you make the best decision that you can with the best available information at the time. It's a tacit undrstanding that does not need to be explained because it's a physical impossibility. What's happening now is that people are trying to go back and retsrospectively undo a historical decision. It's passed. There's no going back. That actual event can't be undone. A new event can be created but you can't use the benefit of hindsight to undo a historical event. It's pure fantasy. I believe that's why, in law, there's a statute of limitations, to prevent exactly this. The electorate trust their governments (well, ...) so using the benefit of hindsight to alter the course of events needs to be stipulated upfront, before anyone actually votes on anything. .


Exactly, you can create a new event based on the new information now available. That's exactly the reason why we have an opportunity to have a referendum based on all the information that has emerged in the 2 years since the previous poll.
Reply 93
Original post by Doonesbury
Exactly, you can create a new event based on the new information now available. That's exactly the reason why we have an opportunity to have a referendum based on all the information that has emerged in the 2 years since the previous poll.

It will have to be called 'A referendum to leave or remain in the EU' then and not ' A second referendum to leave or remain in the EU because we didn't like the look of the last one'. We'll have to have a new lead-in on campaigning, etc.. The government will have to have the wording, "A vote to remain or leave the EU but please be advised that you must cast this vote based on the information that is available to you NOW and not on any new information, whatever that may be, that may emerge in the two-year period starting immediately on the day after you have cast your vote; otherwise, we may decide, depending on the outcome of this vote, to look back retrospectively in two years' time and decide that the new information that emerged was XXX, which will then invalidate the vote that you cast. Or, it may not". The whole thing is absurd. I can't believe people are taking it seriously.
Reply 94
Original post by Medrat
The whole thing is absurd. I can't believe people are taking it seriously.


Ireland had 2 referendums on the Treaty of Lisbon. One in 2008 polled 47:53 to reject the Treaty, and a follow-up in 2009 67:33 approved the Treaty.
My personal view is that the whole referendum campaign was a disaster and the perfect example of how lies, deception and deliberate misleading, as well as illegal activity in an election campaign can cause significant and serious long term issues.

Unlike elections to elect individuals, we have the added issue that the referendum has no time limit, where as standard elections get re-run every few years. In standard elections any illegal activity or deliberate lies or deception (if not identified or if not overturned by other methods) get eliminated when the election is re-run.

In addition, at the time the referendum was held, there was very little hard evidence about the impact of Brexit. Most of evidence presented on both sides was based on long term projections with large margins of error and which many people could find holes in. People were asked to make decisions when there was not enough information to make an informed one.

However, since we've been progressing with Brexit and trying to find make it work, we've started to see the impact Brexit will have, there is more evidence available and projections on future impacts are becoming more robust.

With both these things in mind, I believe it would be totally acceptable and democratic to go back to the people and ask them to make an informed decision on whether they now want to proceed with Brexit.

If another referendum was held, I would also love it if there were increased requirements on evidence and truth required on campaigns and clearer instructions on spending. Not sure how we'd do these things. however.

But I also believe that we do not require another referendum to proceed with options other than Brexit. An advisory referendum was held, and despite issues with the conduct, Parliament and the Government tried to follow through with the recommended outcome. But since then, there has been significant growing evidence that prove every Brexit option would be significantly more detrimental to our country than to remain. We elect our MPs to act on our behalf and in the best interests of the country. It would therefore be completely within their rights to halt Brexit entirely without any additional public vote, if it were to ensure less harm to the country. The fact we have since had a general election after the Brexit debate adds further weight to the democratic nature of this option as there is a more recent mandate for the MPs elected in 2017 to act in the best interests of the UK than there is for following through with the out comes of a non-binding referendum.

The worst outcome of all of this is to plough on with Brexit whatever the cost. That would be a dereliction of duty of every single MP who votes for it. There job is to do what is best for the country and if they knowingly vote for a Brexit deal that is proven to cause significant hurt to people, businesses, and services, then that would be a very sad day for everyone.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by The.One.And.Only
If the vote was remain, we wouldn't be having this debate. End of.


well surely that speaks for itself doesn't it. If there r ppl wanting a second referendum if the result was leave, and not if the vote was to remain then surely that means that most ppl want to remain and that we should remain?
Original post by Keele University Guest Lecturer
Would a second referendum be a gross betrayal of peoples’ trust in UK democracy as stated by the Prime Minister?

On one hand, violations of promises by people or governments are a violation of trust.

On the other hand, referendums are not a normal part of the democratic process in the UK and therefore it seems unlikely that such a violation would substantially undermine our trust in our democratic form of government. This conclusion is furthered by the fact that:

(a) there have been questions about the honesty of the information presented by both sides of the Brexit debate

(b) both sides have received fines for breaching electoral campaign funding law.

Finally, government and politicians could deal with this potential violation of trust by accounts, explanations, and, apologies, as well as by wording any second referendum in a way that respects the diversity of opinion in the UK about Brexit.


What do you think? Post your thoughts here.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ken J. Rotenberg is a Professor in the School of Psychology at Keele University. The primary focus of his research is on interpersonal trust. He has some 40 publications and 3 books on the topic including The Psychology of Trust published by Routledge Press. He has written on the topic for Psychology Today and The Conversation.

He is on TSR to get involved in this debate.


Brexit will happen. If it doesn't or there is another vote on it. It is an embarrassment of the people and the democracy in this country. I will NEVER vote if a second referendum happens.
Original post by Keele University Guest Lecturer
Dear ManicDrBeatles:

Thank you for responding to my Blog. As a social psychologist, I am not advocating a second referendum. I am describing the consequences of having and not having one.

Yours, Ken




Dear ManicDrBeatles:

Thank you for responding to my Blog. As a social psychologist, I am not advocating a second referendum. I am describing the consequences of having and not having one.

Yours, Ken
(edited 5 years ago)
the man in the acrylic cardigan has spoken. we are leaving the bosom of Europe.