Would a referendum on any other subject have been as divisive?

[littlequestion]

Imagine the referendum had been on a completely different issue, but with the power to affect all our lives - e.g. "Should the NHS should be abolished so we can lower income tax?"

And imagine there was a narrow "Yes" vote and we'd had the same shenanigans where no one could quite agree what it meant - did it mean NO health service at all, or did it mean each area setting up its own health service or whatever.

If three years down the line, we still hadn't abolished it, would it be the only issue in town, as Brexit seems to be, because the democratic will of the people hadn't be followed through? Would Tory leader hopefuls be only talking about this subject and nothing else?

We had one on changing our voting system when the Tory/Lub Dem coalition started. That didn't have a divisive effect. But then the Indyref in Scotland had a huge effect on that nation which has just been reignited by Brexit.

I suspect a referendum on the death penalty, or corporal punishment in schools would be depressingly close-run, though I'm not sure there would such pervasive anger on both sides.

A resounding Remain Win was the only way to put the Euroskeptic issue to bed. People would have accepted that & recovered. We didn't get that... we got Purgatory, instead.

It's funny how divisive the Scottish Indie referendum was but then the Scots reunited a huge amount afterwards. Status Quo is less divisive outcome in general?

I agree with Greensleeves. There would be very strong ideological reasons to resist having the death penalty, but its reinstatement wouldn't affect the majority of people personally, so probably wouldn't be as divisive.

One of the reasons behind the Brexit divide IMO is that half the population have voted to strip certain rights from their fellow citizens: rights which many of us value hugely. The subsequent crowing about 'we won' and the lack of acknowledgement of the closeness of the result of this advisory referendum has made things worse. And then we have TM's 'red lines' and her pandering to ERG, along with her utter refusal to address any of the concerns of the people who didn't vote to leave. All of these have stoked further division.

Finally, the inability of leavers to articulate any concrete benefits to leaving the EU 3 years after the vote has done nothing to reassure anyone. By now, if some good, solid arguments for the benefits of leaving had been made, remainers would, I'm sure, be 'coming round' to the idea.

Brexit was so uniquely divisive because it became a proxy for fundamental cultural dividing lines. Urban vs rural. Old vs young. Progressive vs conservative. Scotland vs England. University educated vs not. Pro-diversity vs ‘we want our country back’. London vs the rest of the country.

I voted Remain, but I also have some sympathy for those who felt overwhelmed by the scale and speed of change in their communities, and felt angry that they had never been asked if that was what they wanted.

Perhaps a referendum on capital punishment would be similarly divisive, but we will never find out because the chances of Parliament voting for that are zero.

I don't think so.

It is divisive because it has brought out fundamental differences in values between nationalists and globalists. As remainers like twofingers just don't get why people voted Brexit and so adopt the arrogant attitude that Brexiteers are stupid. I can't think of issue that would bring that out more while being close enough to argue for so long over.

The second reason is that parliament is not representative of the population as a whole. MPs have not accepted the referendum and but themselves against the people which has created anger. I agree that the dead penalty is another issue that would do that.

Capital punishment or abortion laws.

I would genuinely look to leave a country where the government had the power to systematically murder its citizens.

winebottle. As remainers like twofingers just don't get why people voted Brexit and so adopt the arrogant attitude that Brexiteers are stupid

Oh, do please point out where i have called - or implied - that Leave voters are stupid. Go on.

Final paragraph

The referendum was doomed to fail because it was a black and white yes/no question on a very very complicated situation. It should never ever have been put to the people without a clear plan for leaving outlined and an agreeable way forward for NI. For three years we have had nothing but lies and propaganda that has gone unchecked. We beed an independent body to oversee referendum campaigns, to provide factual impartial information to the public and to ensure that any dubious claims by politicians on either side of the argument are immediately refuted.

Is that a barrel being scraped? Leavers have such a victim mentality. See it all the time on these threads.
There is nothing whatsoever in my final paragraph that implies leavers are stupid. Interesting slant you've chosen to put on it, winebottle.
Instead of inventing things I never said, why don't you articulate some of the benefits of leaving. (I presume - from your defensiveness that you are a leaver.) I was actually thinking more of leavers in parliament and bigmouth leavers like Farage when I said leavers hadn't articulated the benefits yet, but feel free to enlighten us on their behalf.

I agree with you, Backintime. We need politicians with integrity, but have self-interested agitators instead.

We beed an independent body to oversee referendum campaigns,
How would this body be chosen and who would ensure that it is independent?

Gullivers Travels is worth a re read.

Jonathon Swift satirised human conflict through the interminable war between the Big Enders and Little Enders of Lilliput and Blefescu (which end of a boiled egg should be broken first).

His satirical portayal of that 'war' which destroyed the economies of those arguing, has many similarities with where we are now.

Perhaps we should have a follow up referendum on which end of a boiled egg one should crack open first.

It would probably make more sense than the last referendum and the last 3 years of this stuff.

Fingers, prominent leavers have been articulating the benefits of Brexit for more than three years. If you haven't been persuaded in that time, I don't think me repeating it will convince you.

What makes you the judge of what is a "concrete benefit"? The majority of people were persuaded the benefits were worth the costs.

Leave wouldn't have won if the benefits had not been articulated. You just don't agree with the reasons that have been articulated.

My point is that people on your side of the argument don't disagree with the reasons people voted for Brexit, you don't understand them and you deem people's reasons invalid because of that.

Any reason I give, you are going to say isn't a proper reason. Instead of recognising that we have different different values that lead to different opinions, you will think it is a matter of right and wrong which it is not.

Why am I not surprised by winebottle coming out with the usual old flannel about the benefits having been explained as nauseum while singularly failing to mention a single one of them?

Yes I think a referendum on another subject could have been just as divisive - provided that it was packaged and sold in a similar way.

Imagine a referendum on a control ‘your Britain’ package. The elements on offer match your beliefs on punishment, pensions, NHS and school funding. This is at no extra cost to you personally. (Plus your football team are guaranteed a victory. )

You can label it Britlove, Britvision, Britdream, Britall, Britwin, iBrit, Brexfactor, Brit-It, Britgreat or Britnew.

If three years down the line, the vision you voted for still hadn't happened, yes it would still be focussed on.

The ref never was an isolated issue. Before the ref the polls showed a tiny percentage off the public saw the EU as a prime issue, it became the focus of a nebulous false package that was sold over a long preceding period -based on nostalgia, social change, national pride, fear, personal control, empire and self esteem.

prominent leavers have been articulating the benefits of Brexit for more than three years.

They've been mumbling something about democracy and sovereignty (while never defining what democratic or sovereign rights we are gaining) and occasionally, in rare moments of honestly, suggesting that we might have to wait 50 years to benefit.

I don't call that "articulating".

Winebottle - what are the actual, measurable substantive benefits of leaving the EU?

I'm happy to wait

prominent leavers have been articulating the benefits of Brexit for more than three years.

I know Leavers have convinced themselves this is true but surely, at some point, you’d stop and think ‘hang on, I can’t actually think of one tangible benefit, just a few slogans which don’t actually mean anything’

@Southwestten Ireland has a Referendum Commission tasked with providing unbiased information and to encourage people to vote. The chairperson must be a former Supreme Court judge or former high court judge plus 4 other members. Ireland also hold citizen assemblies in advance of having a referendum made up of randomly selected citizens where experts on both sides give evidence. The idea being that the people are more factually informed and less likely to be swayed by populist ideals and rhetoric.

blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/irish-referendums-deliberative-assemblies/

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/governmentinnireland/electionsanddreferenda/referenda/referendum_commission.html

Thank you for answering my question backintime

The second reason is that parliament is not representative of the population as a whole.

The answer to this is partly in your own hands - get active in politics, put up candidates that people want to vote for, get them elected.

However, this argument is nearly always one sided - it's only Remain voting MPs in Leave constituencies who are criticised. I have yet to hear a Leaver talk about a Leave voting MP in a Remain constituency being called out for not representing their electorate. That's Zak Goldsmith, Rees-Mogg for a starters.

This referendum was Status Quo vs Something Else. And Something Else won, but is actually at least a dozen different Something Elses, half of which are impossible and the rest are mutually exclusive.

Any referendum where one option isn't a real option and is just 'not the other thing' is going to have the same delivery problem if that side wins.

I agree the topic is less important than the rhetoric to inflame both sides' emotions. If the actual topic was key then I suspect 'should Great Britain cease to be in a United Kingdom including Northern Ireland' would be a contender for stoking the most division in the country and across Europe.

I would say a referendum on a United Ireland would be as devicive and even more destructive... at least for the people of Northern Ireland.

Too much history and hurt, and too soon after the conflict "ending" for another generation at least.

Unfortunatly, Brexit and lack of functioning NI Assembly makes the calls for a referendum more likely in my view.