3 ms·
Well, it's more like "The will of the 17.4M + 13M who were okay with it", with the other 21.5M unable to vote due to immigration status, age, failure to registe
by ipsi 8y ago
Well, it's more like "The will of the 17.4M + 13M who were okay with it", with the other 21.5M unable to vote due to immigration status, age, failure to register, or other reasons.
- SeanDav 8y agoIf it had gone the other way, all these points would have been exactly the same - why would it be any more/less acceptable (from a democratic process point of view)?
- isostatic 8y agoNormally major constitutional changes require supermajorities to pass
- repolfx 8y agoNot in the UK. All constitutional referendums have used 50%+1 including the original remain/leave referendum that happened a few years after joining.
- isostatic 8y agoI'm talking generally across the world, and not just referenda. > the original remain/leave referendum that happened a few years after joining That wasn't constitutional change. Nor was it binding. This referendum was also non-binding, it's right there in the act of parliament that authorized it. Of course once Parliament agreed to invoke article 50 the referendum became irrelevant. Parliament - specifically the Tories, Labour, DUP, UUP and UKIP mps who decided to take us out of the EU with no deal, not the referendum. 320 MPs can change the UK constitution (although there are some protections with the House of Lords), which is the anomaly globally.