8 ms·
I really wish they'd stop calling it a "clear majority". I'm not sure when 52-48 was ever such.
by midgetjones 10y ago
I really wish they'd stop calling it a "clear majority". I'm not sure when 52-48 was ever such.
- elcct 10y agoBut whatever they call it, it is majority indeed and that's the democracy - you either accept that majority wins or well... don't know
- throwaway-hn123 10y agoOr realise that the 52-48 reflects a point in time, that things change and therefore it's perfectly ok to campaign against brexit, and try to stop it. Or do you subscribe to the point of view that we should only have had a single general election and abide by that result for all time?
- dasboth 10y ago> the 52-48 reflects a point in time The number of people who claimed to wish they could change their vote after the result was surprising. How many referendums do we need before people decide they've voted "properly"?
- sasvari 10y agoThe number of people who claimed to wish they could change their vote after the result was surprising. How many referendums do we need before people decide they've voted "properly"? Maybe that's the reasons why direct democracy by means of referendums is [considered to be] not always a good idea.
- mixedCase 10y agoOf course, not always. It is only a good idea when you can agree with the result, of course.
- ldjb 10y agoConsidering the British people never voted to join the EU in its current form, I'm not sure why membership of the EU should be seen as the default option. If we weren't asked whether we wanted to join a post-Lisbon Treaty EU, and once we were in it, we actively said we don't want it, why should we remain in it?
- ricw 10y agoThis is factually incorrect. As a parliamentary democracy we voted for all the governments that agreed to all such treaties and had the right to veto or reject any of them (which we did, the Schengen or euro treaties being examples thereof).
- ldjb 10y agoPeople voted in general elections for many different reasons. People voting for a pro-EU party didn't necessarily support the EU. And all those elections took place under a flawed first-past-the-post system.
- throwaway-hn123 10y agoI mean, if you want to keep moving the goalposts as your arguments are rebutted, that's fine. It just makes you not appear to be acting in good faith.
- ldjb 10y agoI don't see how I'm moving the goalposts. All I'm saying is that the EU referendum result must be respected. General election results must also be respected, but they revolve around a number of issues, so are not a good indicator of voters' opinion of membership of the EU. Besides, the Conservatives were elected into government with a manifesto promising an in-out referendum. The government has delivered on that promise and is carrying out the will of the people, as decided in that referendum.
- 10y ago
- slmyers 10y agoI'm not sure if you can describe modern democracies as a will of the majority -- marijuana legalization, civil rights movements, anti war sentiments as examples.
- return0 10y agoThe referendum is a poll. UK has representative, parliamentary democracy.
- vixen99 10y agoExactly - so we should disregard the original referendum (a mere poll, as you put it) on the basis of which the British government signed up in 1975 to what was then the embryo EU - though only those experienced in deciphering subtexts in official documents really understood at that time that federation was the real goal not merely the establishment of a free trade area.
- tom_mellior 10y ago> the original referendum (a mere poll, as you put it) on the basis of which the British government signed up You seem to be trying a reductio ad absurdum argument here and failing. The UK joined the EEC in 1973, without a referendum but based on an act of Parliament. In 1975 they held an explicitly non-binding referendum that supported staying in the EEC. In other words, that referendum voted to maintain the status quo. You can "disregard" it if you wish, but that would also just mean maintaining the status quo. The UK has never held a binding referendum on EEC/EU membership. According to the UK's crufty "constitution", this means Parliament gets to decide. If Parliament does nothing, the UK remains in the EU.
- _delirium 10y agoThe court also relied somewhat heavily on a more specific feature of UK constitutional principles: that if Parliament has granted a right to British citizens, only Parliament itself may revoke it. The European Communities Act 1972, the court held here, has the effect of granting certain individual rights to British citizens (such as a right of appeal to various EU courts). As these were granted by an Act of Parliament, they can only be revoked by another Act of Parliament, not by a decree of the Government. Therefore the European Communities Act 1972 must be properly repealed by Parliament, not de-facto rendered inoperative by action of the Government.
- Quarrelsome 10y agoI'm sorry to be rude but this is a very basic interpretation of democracy. It has some serious limitations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule#Limitations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule#Limitations typically we practice more complex implementations of democracy and as a rule we use majority rule for things like social questions as opposed to key strategic and economic ones.
- pja 10y agoUnfortunately it was a clear result, but not a decent majority. Makes life difficult for everyone...
- pmuk 10y agoNarrow majority would be more accurate.
- koolba 10y ago> I really wish they'd stop calling it a "clear majority". I'm not sure when 52-48 was ever such. It's a majority though. If they wanted to have a higher threshold for the vote (say 60%) they should have done as much when writing the referendum.
- gpderetta 10y agoAs the referendum was only advisory in the first place, what the threshold would actually means?
- mavhc 10y agoOnly 27% of UK people voted to leave, out of all of them.
- vilmosi 10y agoBut even less voted remain. That's the point.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- StavrosK 10y agoAnd only 26% voted to remain, out of all of them...
- vixen99 10y agoThe 17 million votes for Leave was the largest vote ever cast in Britain for anything at all in the entire history of the UK. Blair swept to power in 1997 with 13 million votes. The Conservatives got fourteen million in 1992. With 16 million voting for Remain, putting it to the courts was a recipe for confrontation. Nothing has ignited the British people as much as this issue. Big trouble ahead.
- akytt 10y agoThere's a view that Trump is but a big "fk you" towards the liberal elite that has drifted too far from the blue-collar folks they have failed to support in dire times. The UK situation would seem to be similar. Thus the key question is "did the elite get the message and can/will they do anything about it?" If yes, the society will go back to normal. If no, the rift widens further as the society is divided into radical camps. Which, by the way, would suit the neo-russian message of "the west is doomed, we are the saviour" message very well.
- lucb1e 10y agoI've never seen anyone call this a clear majority, all the news I've read, seen and heard called it close. Anyone who calls this a clear victory or clear majority is kidding themselves.
- midgetjones 10y agoDavid Davis said "The mandate for Britain to leave the European Union is clear, overwhelming, and unarguable."
- arethuza 10y agoAnd Farage said, before the poll "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681 How right he was, although perhaps not quite in the way he meant.
- lucb1e 10y agoWell then he's either a fool or misrepresenting facts. I recall the difference being less than 4 percent points which cannot be called significant in a referendum under any circumstance. I'm not even saying Britain should leave or stay, the whole methodology is wrong here. With close calls this is equivalent to flipping a coin, and only because it's a close call we accept the given outcome. Or in this case, many don't because they didn't think it'd come to this, but that's beside the point.
- vixen99 10y agoIt's as clear as almost any election result has ever been in the UK.
- SideburnsOfDoom 10y ago> Anyone who calls this a clear victory or clear majority is kidding themselves And yet I believe that words to that effect have been used in parliament.
- exox 10y agoGiven the 72.2% turnout[1] it was just 37.5% of the voting-eligible population that voted for Brexit. The whole Brexit saga makes me think more than ever that voting on issues of such national importance (including general elections) should be made mandatory. [1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/how-did-turnout-affect-the-eu-referendum-result/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/how-did-turnout-a...
- avar 10y agoThe referendum to enter the EU had a 64% turnout with 67.23% voting yes & 32.77% voting no. So that's around 43% that voted to enter[1]. Regardless, I think this entire line of reasoning makes no sense. You could dismiss pretty much any election by multiplying the "yes" votes with voter turnout to get less than 50%. That's just how democracies work, if you don't care enough to vote you don't get a say, that doesn't mean the opinions of people who do turn up should be given less weight. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Commun...
- anon1385 10y agoWell, the UK has run referendums that way in the past. Most famously the Scottish devolution referendum in 1979. Yes got 51.62% but did not win because there was a requirement for 40% of the electorate to vote Yes for it to pass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum,_1979 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum...
- pjc50 10y agoYup. One of the reasons why referenda are such a bad idea in the UK is that every single one has been run with different rules, usually for the purpose of putting a thumb on the scale. The Brexit referendum excluded resident EU nationals - who are allowed to vote in Parliamentary elections.
- tehwalrus 10y ago
- vermontdevil 10y agoDecisions like this should require a 2/3 yes vote. Raise the bar higher if something this big would have a long lasting impact.
- clort 10y agoIn 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' if I recall correctly, it was suggested that if 1/3 of the population really wanted a law then it should probably be enacted. Conversely if 1/3 of the population really didn't like one then it should be repealed. I always thought Heinlein liked the thought of a state of anarchy though and I haven't tried to work out if he would induce one by his suggestions.. [] its been nearly 40 years since I read it
- youngtaff 10y agoYeh, approx 25% of people couldn't vote (and you've got to image many of the Europeans in the UK would have voted to stay), another 25% didn't vote, and the 50% that did vote were narrowly split
- brianmcc 10y agoExactly. It's not a penalty shoot out. The margin of the majority is tiny. Overall the electorate was broadly split among Leave, Remain and Shrug/Dunno. This is in no way whatsoever a clear mandate to leave given that X% of Leave votes were by voters' own admission a protest, and another Y% seem keen to change their vote having had a taste of the upheaval ahead - where X + Y is likely more than 2. Personally I don't think it "disrespects" the original vote, or the democratic process, where margins are absolutely razor-thin to feel an "are you sure?" followup is warranted. 70/30 Leave? Sure: a clear consensus, can't really argue. 52/48? Different matter entirely.
- jamie_ca 10y agoAgree. With a 72% voter turnout, it's better described as a 38-34 result. (based on 52.7 and 47.3 from bloomberg)