3 ms·

I don't see how this could reasonably have been done in the Brexit case. You would have to spend years negotiating the terms of the withdrawal first, then ask t

I don't see how this could reasonably have been done in the Brexit case. You would have to spend years negotiating the terms of the withdrawal first, then ask the people for a yea or nay. That negotiation would go totally differently if the UK government couldn't credibly claim it had a mandate from the people for the withdrawal.

jrumbut 8y ago
In retrospect, it didn't go all too well with the mandate either.
- pavlov 8y ago
  In a functioning parliamentary democracy, the proper order of actions for Brexit would have been: 1) UKIP (or a coalition of Brexit-minded parties) wins general election. 2) PM Nigel Farage opens withdrawal negotiations with the EU. 3) 2+ years later, with a complete withdrawal agreement on the table, a referendum is held on whether to accept the deal. 4) If at least 50% of voters support the withdrawal agreement, it comes into effect within two months. This is not a pipe dream — it's exactly how the countries who joined EU in 1995 did it. David Cameron is entirely to blame for this ongoing sad charade that makes a mockery of UK's democratic processes.
  - C1sc0cat 8y ago
    2/3rds or 75% not 50% plus 1
rmc 8y ago
In a way they did just that. David Cameron negotated some changes to EU law (minor tweaks), and said to the British people: "I went to the EU and got these changes, shall we stay in or leave?"
nraynaud 8y ago
That’s what they did on the “European constitution”. On Maastricht, on schengen.