3 ms·
> each one carries with it the implication that a direct democratic mandate, to leave the EU, is ignored. And there's the problem. There IS a case to be made
by fennecfoxen 10y ago
> each one carries with it the implication that a direct democratic mandate, to leave the EU, is ignored.
And there's the problem.
There IS a case to be made that a democratic majority with a margin of merely 4% is something that can, in fact, be ignored. In the United States, we have these lovely Senate filibusters, for instance, which everyone loves to complain about when their party isn't the one doing them. And vetos. And Supreme Court smackdowns.
The UK has at least a couple of these it could theoretically apply (e.g. the fact that Parliament isn't bound by the results, and some long-shot ones like Scottish Parliament or the royal veto that they apparently never use) but when you put something on the ballot like that and make the entire nation vote, it kind of sends a message that this is something that's going to be respected. If there's a whole new Parliament in a few months that may be different? But substantial fallout will remain.
- cmdkeen 10y agoYep but you can't retrospectively apply a different standard because the result you didn't like happened. Getting such a standard applied in the beginning would also have been tricky given recent precedent (the AV and Scottish referenda) that viewed 50% + 1 as sufficient. Given the Scottish government want a second IndyRef they weren't going to sit by and allow a supermajority clause added to this referendum.