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:
[…] 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.
A country that cannot change its mind ceases to be a democracy
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.
(I know that the Brexit discourse is largely irrational. I keep trying nevertheless.)