3 ms·

> A 52% majority is no basis for far-reaching, long-term constitutional change if victory in a direct plebiscite isn't a legitimate basis for long-term constit

> A 52% majority is no basis for far-reaching, long-term constitutional change if victory in a direct plebiscite isn't a legitimate basis for long-term constitutional change: what about all the EU treaties that made long-term constitutional changes without any sort of referendum (e.g. Maastricht, Nice, Lisbon)? did those have a legitimate basis?

kergonath 5y ago
The 1975 referendum was not decided by a 2% margin (the result was ~68% in favour). To get it from the horse’s mouth, “in a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way”. Of course Farage thought he would lose when he said that, but the “we won by 1.8%, just suck it up” talking point is pure hypocrisy.
- blibble 5y ago
  it's hard to argue against the position that the state of the EEC in 1975 was anything other than legitimate given it was directly approved by the electorate the same cannot be said for the subsequent treaty changes, especially if one considers the 2016 referendum to be an illegitimate basis for reversing the changes (and the EEC of 1975 was very, very different to the EU of 2016)
EForEndeavour 5y ago
> if victory in a direct plebiscite isn't a legitimate basis for long-term constitutional change The question is not whether a referendum outcome should legitimize change. The question is whether using the threshold of simple majority (50%) makes sense. Many constitutional changes throughout the world require a supermajority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority
- blibble 5y ago
  I'd agree but then I'd counter with the fact that a super-majority wasn't required to join the EU (EEC in 1975), so why is it fair that a supermajority would then be required to leave it? stacking the odds in Remain's favour in this way would definitely have been seen as illegitimate (I'm also certain that the majority of people stating that the UK leaving the EU should have required a super-majority would be against requiring a super-majority to rejoin, in the unlikely event that ever happens...)

kergonath 5y ago

The 1975 referendum was not decided by a 2% margin (the result was ~68% in favour). To get it from the horse’s mouth, “in a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way”. Of course Farage thought he would lose when he said that, but the “we won by 1.8%, just suck it up” talking point is pure hypocrisy.

blibble 5y ago
it's hard to argue against the position that the state of the EEC in 1975 was anything other than legitimate given it was directly approved by the electorate the same cannot be said for the subsequent treaty changes, especially if one considers the 2016 referendum to be an illegitimate basis for reversing the changes (and the EEC of 1975 was very, very different to the EU of 2016)

EForEndeavour 5y ago

> if victory in a direct plebiscite isn't a legitimate basis for long-term constitutional change The question is not whether a referendum outcome should legitimize change. The question is whether using the threshold of simple majority (50%) makes sense. Many constitutional changes throughout the world require a supermajority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority

blibble 5y ago
I'd agree but then I'd counter with the fact that a super-majority wasn't required to join the EU (EEC in 1975), so why is it fair that a supermajority would then be required to leave it? stacking the odds in Remain's favour in this way would definitely have been seen as illegitimate (I'm also certain that the majority of people stating that the UK leaving the EU should have required a super-majority would be against requiring a super-majority to rejoin, in the unlikely event that ever happens...)