The Globe Kept Spinning after 2016

Did the rotation of Earth stop after the 2016 referendum? Did you learn something since then?

Best BREXIT sign yet! From the march today

— Catherine Butler (@ButlerDineen) March 23, 2019

Sufficiently intelligent people check from time to time whether the paradigms for their decisions have changed. An update after three years of learning is due. Another public vote on Brexit is not against democracy, it’s against dumbness.

I Am Not Alone

We live in times where proposing to use a 2nd Brexit referendum as a step in a Deming Cycle (applied to the Brexit decision making process) seems to be a very strange idea to politicians. But today I discovered that I am not alone:

What data is this claim based on? I think it’s a hypothesis that needs to be tested by a #PeoplesVote on the specific terms of #Brexit now that we know what they are. In god we trust, all others bring data (attrib. #Deming)

— Chris Young (@worldofchris) November 23, 2018

I despair at how little it is known, and applied, in business. Management orthodoxy of command and control, and shouting, seems to go unquestioned.

— Chris Young (@worldofchris) February 25, 2019

What Kind of Second Referendum?

Labour’s move on second EU referendum seems, on face of it, v positive. But instinct says we should wait for detail. A referendum with no remain option would be ludicrous – so hopefully that’s not the proposal.

— Nicola Sturgeon (@NicolaSturgeon) February 25, 2019

Please take care that a 2nd referendum is used to apply to the Brexit decision making process.

— Goetz Kluge (@Bonnetmaker) February 25, 2019

Let’s get some OODA loop in there too

— Chris Young (@worldofchris) February 25, 2019


"According to Owen Smith, Corbyn was asked 23 times if in a future referendum he would want Remain to be an option on the ballot paper. Corbyn declined to answer." Short version, it's a con. See @katyballs

— Sarah Baxter (@SarahbaxterSTM) February 25, 2019


Dear conservatives, please don't be stupid. Applying to the Brexit decision making process of course does not betray the will of the British people. In contrary, it helps the British people to come to reason. Seemingly you are afraid of that.

— Goetz Kluge (@Bonnetmaker) February 25, 2019

You Thought It’s Avocado? Eat up Your Wasabi!

@MPGeorgeEustice shows what is driving the Brexit: To the British (mostly English) political "elite" the Brexit provides the means to exert tighter control over UK citizens without interference from Europe. These citizens will have to learn again to follow their own elite only.

— Goetz Kluge (@Bonnetmaker) February 23, 2019

Ian, Eustine wrote his letter in a way which invites misunderstanding. However, to read it in a different way doesn't improve his letter. He uses eristic rhetoric patterns against a 2nd referendum.

— Goetz Kluge (@Bonnetmaker) February 23, 2019

[…] The second thing we need to do is vanquish those who want to ignore the referendum result and force people to vote again until they learn to do what the political elites demand. There is no point at all having a second referendum if parliament lacks the integrity to honour the result of the first. A decision to ignore the 2016 referendum result would be deeply damaging to our country and must not be allowed. []

  • 2nd Referendum: The point to have a second referendum is that such a referendum honours the will of intelligent and mature people (I assume that British voters are intelligent and mature) to adapt their decision to changes of the paradigms on which that decision was based. Eustine is dishonest when asking to “vanquish” those who want to “ignore the referendum result” and “force” people to vote again until they make a decision demanded by the “political elites”. That’s utter nonsense and knowingly distorts the intentions of those who ask for a 2nd referendum. It is quite unintelligent to thoughtlessly honour a 2016 referendum which was based on much less information than what is available in 2019. We need to vanquish those who want to ignore changed paradigms and unrealistic promises.
  • PCDA: Implying that a 2nd referendum would be lack of integrity shows lack of integrity on Eustine’s side. Eustine knows that good governance requires to Plan–Do–Check–Adjust decisions and their implementations. To do that e.g. by means of a 2nd referendum is more democracy, not less. One of changed paradigms justifying the application of PCDS to the 2016 decision could be explained in bold yellow letters on big red busses driven through the Kingdom: “A Brexit will lead to higher taxes required to rescue the NHS.”
  • Patronizing the People: Eustine’s “… until they [the people] learn to do what the political elites demand …” should help his constituency to easily understand what kind of lesson they will have to teach to patronizers like Eustine. To be fair, Eustine wanted to say that he is against repeating voting until voters “learn” to agree to what the political elite demands. However, Eustine’s rhetoric patterns are dishonestly eristic nevertheless (and boring, because they are being used ad nauseam by many other politicians too who are against a 2nd referendum), for it is Eustine who patronizes the voters by not letting them apply PDCA to their decision. He forces them to stick to their decision like bad parents who force their child to eat up the full wasabi serving which the poor kid chose assuming that it was avocado. Eustine is the patronizer, not those who want to offer a 2nd referendum to the people.

Democratic Double Check

It seems that Theresa May pretends to protect democracy by not offering a 2nd referendum because in reality she wants to “protect” herself from having to admit that she made several big mistakes. These mistakes would become clearly visible if a 2nd referendum would take place. To Theresa May, saving her own face is more important than the future of the United Kingdom and its citizens.

Claiming that asking people for their opinion in a 2nd referendum would do harm to democracy is utterly foolish. A 2nd referendum will be based on knowledge which was not available to the voters who participated in the 1st referendum. That’s obvious. Theresa May can think clearly and knows that. Therefore not offering a second referendum is worse than foolish. It is selfish and evil.

After May's heroic failure: Check and adjust! A 2nd referendum is more democracy and smarter democracy.

Applying the Deming Cycle (plan–do–check–act or plan–do–check–adjust, is good governance.

The UK should do it.

The EU should do it.

— Goetz Kluge (@Bonnetmaker) January 16, 2019


Good governance requires "Double Check" (actually more: a cycle of checks): .

— Goetz Kluge (@Bonnetmaker) January 15, 2019



Governments should practise good governance:

— Goetz Kluge (@Bonnetmaker) January 15, 2019



@JolyonMaugham @JMPSimor @Nigel_Farage @acgrayling @OxfordDiplomat @SPD2212 @Shortbloke @abcpoppins

— 🔶 Limited Ferry Sevices without a Ferry (@Wade73605662) January 14, 2019


A good tool to put differences aside rationally is the Deming Cycle ( ). With regard to the consequences of the #Brexit, applying »plan–do–check–act« is the least you have to do if you don't want to deliberately do harm to the citizens of your country.

— Goetz Kluge (@Bonnetmaker) January 1, 2019


(I know that the Brexit discourse is largely irrational. I keep trying nevertheless.)

GDPR Cookie Consent with Real Cookie Banner