3 ms·

It's completely fair to blame Cameron because he absolutely bungled the process. If they had come out with a clear outline of what was to be expected, then thi

It's completely fair to blame Cameron because he absolutely bungled the process. If they had come out with a clear outline of what was to be expected, then things would be different. There were all kinds of different narratives such as how it would be the 'easiest [deal] in human history'. Not to mention how poorly everything was formulated. The referendum should've been a lot clearer in it's goals and limits. It's not a joke, it's not possible to be brash with such things because you can't redo it because then it becomes a matter of just redoing things until the party in power gets what they want. Cameron didn't take it seriously because he was so confident that it wouldn't come to pass. In some ways, I am genuinely not surprised that Brexit happened when you have a large coalition of people that wanted hard brexit, people that thought it would be over and done with in one night, people that bought into the lies of british politicians about the EU because it's a convenient scapegoat. If the options outlined were May's plan, no-deal or staying in the EU, things would've been very different. Goddamn David Cameron.

yardstick 6y ago
All very good points. I also think it’s crazy that the UK would even hold a referendum with a 50% threshold on such a key aspect of the country. Try make a change to the American constitution and you’re looking at 66% support in both houses and 66% of the states backing it. That is the right way to do it IMO for such fundamental changes.
- aembleton 6y ago
  It wasn't a binding referendum. Parliament could have not voted to go ahead with leaving the eu.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Indeed. The binding vote was the elections afterwards, in which less than 40% of the public voted Tory, giving them absolute power of decision.
    - thinkingemote 6y ago
      I thought it was less than 40% of those who voted, not the entire population but even less. Also a call to proportional voting would have lead to dozens of ukip and a few BNP members of parliament in the past, so it's not always a good thing even if it gives more seats to more deserving parties like Green.
      - pjc50 6y ago
        Frankly, the deserve a few seats, rather than hovering at the edge of flipping the Tory party. Every time they had an actual MP he flamed out spectacularly.
- votepaunchy 6y ago
  I certainly agree that a higher threshold is warranted for such monumental changes. Constitutional amendments require ratification by 3/4 of the states.

yardstick 6y ago

All very good points. I also think it’s crazy that the UK would even hold a referendum with a 50% threshold on such a key aspect of the country. Try make a change to the American constitution and you’re looking at 66% support in both houses and 66% of the states backing it. That is the right way to do it IMO for such fundamental changes.

aembleton 6y ago
It wasn't a binding referendum. Parliament could have not voted to go ahead with leaving the eu.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Indeed. The binding vote was the elections afterwards, in which less than 40% of the public voted Tory, giving them absolute power of decision.
  - thinkingemote 6y ago
    I thought it was less than 40% of those who voted, not the entire population but even less. Also a call to proportional voting would have lead to dozens of ukip and a few BNP members of parliament in the past, so it's not always a good thing even if it gives more seats to more deserving parties like Green.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      Frankly, the deserve a few seats, rather than hovering at the edge of flipping the Tory party. Every time they had an actual MP he flamed out spectacularly.
votepaunchy 6y ago
I certainly agree that a higher threshold is warranted for such monumental changes. Constitutional amendments require ratification by 3/4 of the states.