3 ms·

I dunno about 2/3rds, but there should definitely be some kind of supermajority required for things like joining or leaving the EU. Even a 55% requirement woul

I dunno about 2/3rds, but there should definitely be some kind of supermajority required for things like joining or leaving the EU. Even a 55% requirement would be a lot better than a simple majority imo.

FartyMcFarter 1mo ago
Then we'd have to hear the Brexiteers whining on and on about democracy. This way we get to see their project fail. I don't know which one is worse.
- danaris 1mo ago
  Hm, which is worse: An entire country of millions of people suffers from the shortsighted actions of a few with reduced quality of products, increased prices, worse access to other countries, and a host of other problems... ...or we have to listen to some people whine?
  - FartyMcFarter 1mo ago
    That's a good point, but sometimes it's a good thing for people to see the consequences of their (and others') choices. Perhaps it could have some good medium / long-term effects.
  - whateverboat 1mo ago
    > Hm, which is worse: An entire country of millions of people suffers from the shortsighted actions of a few Few? 51% is a few? I mean, I also think Brexit was a monumentally stupid decision, but 51% of people wanted it, no? Even assuming that everyone who didn't vote would have voted for remain, given the voter turnout of 71% (which is already very high for any election, typical turnout is around 57%), 35% of people said yes. That's not a few, that a big chunk.
    - HPsquared 1mo ago
      What if 51% weakly want something and 49% strongly want the opposite?
      - ipaddr 1mo ago
        If 51% of the population weakly wanted something they would lose the vote because most wouldn't bother voting. Didn't happen here.
      - 1718627440 1mo ago
        Strongly enough to vote for it.
    - danaris 1mo ago
      The "few" I'm talking about are the politicians who pushed for the referendum, and the politicians and media execs that cheerfully portrayed it as if Brexit was going to cause Europe to give the UK everything it wanted with zero drawbacks or tradeoffs, as if they were still the Mighty And Unchallengeable British Empire. And in any case, the point of my post was the "suffering", not the "few".
    - multjoy 1mo ago
      The biggest issue is that at the time of the vote, nobody had any idea of what Brexit actually meant. The leave campaign could literally promise anything and a) they wouldn’t have to deliver it and b) everyone who voted for Brexit can reasonably suggest that they voted for something other than what was actually delivered. The best you can say about the Brexit vote is that 51% wanted something other than the status quo.
  - tonyedgecombe 1mo ago
    The winners are still whining anyway.
    - teamonkey 1mo ago
      More like “we won, don’t mention it” It was recently the 10-year anniversary of the Brexit vote. Not a single firework.
- UpsideDownRide 1mo ago
  There is nothing inherent to democracy that says that everything needs a simple majority for a decision.
- TulliusCicero 1mo ago
  Democracies require supermajorities for stuff all the time, it's pretty typical, especially for constitutional changes. And in this case, it would also mean that Britain would've joined the EU with a 55%+ majority as well.
IndySun 1mo ago
55%, maybe. But that still leaves a divided country for decades afterwards. It was handled badly from start to finish. Many 'remainers' didn't take the threat serious enough. Never under estimate your opponent.
- TheOtherHobbes 1mo ago
  Cameron put a Eurosceptic in charge of the Remain campaign, and Nick Clegg - supposedly an arch Remainer - went to work for Meta after Cambridge Analytica and its contribution to Brexit became public knowledge. The public were conned. The oligarch-adjacent ruling faction of the ruling class knew exactly what they were doing, the lack of specificity for any Leave plan was deliberate, the lies and propaganda were cynical and calculated, and they were delighted with the result. Then they gave us Boris as the first of a succession of clown car comedy Prime Ministers, and started hyping Farage. It's all a stage set. The public in the UK have zero influence on any of these developments.
  - hawk_ 1mo ago
    I blame Corbyn as much as Cameron if not more. Corbyn was supposed to represent the working class but because Remain could have benefited some Tories he backstabbed the working class and at least a whole generation if not 2 and for what?
    - SmashDan 1mo ago
      Corbyn is an old school leftist and has been anti-EU for a long long time. It's completely unsurprising he was no use here.
    - TulliusCicero 1mo ago
      Corbyn was an unusually terrible leader even by Labour standards. Amazing that some people still support him.
  - 1718627440 1mo ago
    If the vote outcome is directly influenceable by campaigns, you can just let the campaign owners perform the decision. Campaigns only distribute information, voters still need to make a choice.
roenxi 1mo ago
Did they even have a referendum on joining the EU? Just skimming through, it looks like [0] they only had a referendum on EEC membership which sounds like it would predate the EU. It is a bit of an unfair ratchet where people can sidle in to the EU but require strong consensuses to leave. It should be symmetrical. Particularly when the scope of the EU seems to be a bit vague and regularly expanding to micromanage various aspects of life. It looks like they might be trying to rebuild the US federal government. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_membership_of_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_membership_of_t...
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 1mo ago
  This brings to mind the government set up in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress: it takes 2/3rds to pass a law, but only 1/3rd to repeal it. The thinking being if a law isn't good/useful enough to garner 2/3rd support, it shouldn't be law. And if a law is so bad that it can't even get more than 1/3rd the people to support it, it should no longer be a law. Sadly, I don't think it'd work today. People are too divided, it's too easy to import the votes you need, and people are too lazy to understand a law beyond the headline or what the news tells them about it.
  - TulliusCicero 1mo ago
    > And if a law is so bad that it can't even get more than 1/3rd the people to support it What? That's not what you wrote. If it only takes 1/3rd to repeal a law, then you need to keep up 2/3rds support indefinitely, not 1/3rd.
  - nobody9999 1mo ago
    >Sadly, I don't think it'd work today. People are too divided, it's too easy to import the votes you need, and people are too lazy to understand a law beyond the headline or what the news tells them about it. And who and from where might folks "import" such votes? I don't understand what that means. Please do elucidate.

FartyMcFarter 1mo ago

Then we'd have to hear the Brexiteers whining on and on about democracy. This way we get to see their project fail. I don't know which one is worse.

danaris 1mo ago
Hm, which is worse: An entire country of millions of people suffers from the shortsighted actions of a few with reduced quality of products, increased prices, worse access to other countries, and a host of other problems... ...or we have to listen to some people whine?
- FartyMcFarter 1mo ago
  That's a good point, but sometimes it's a good thing for people to see the consequences of their (and others') choices. Perhaps it could have some good medium / long-term effects.
- whateverboat 1mo ago
  > Hm, which is worse: An entire country of millions of people suffers from the shortsighted actions of a few Few? 51% is a few? I mean, I also think Brexit was a monumentally stupid decision, but 51% of people wanted it, no? Even assuming that everyone who didn't vote would have voted for remain, given the voter turnout of 71% (which is already very high for any election, typical turnout is around 57%), 35% of people said yes. That's not a few, that a big chunk.
  - HPsquared 1mo ago
    What if 51% weakly want something and 49% strongly want the opposite?
    - ipaddr 1mo ago
      If 51% of the population weakly wanted something they would lose the vote because most wouldn't bother voting. Didn't happen here.
    - 1718627440 1mo ago
      Strongly enough to vote for it.
  - danaris 1mo ago
    The "few" I'm talking about are the politicians who pushed for the referendum, and the politicians and media execs that cheerfully portrayed it as if Brexit was going to cause Europe to give the UK everything it wanted with zero drawbacks or tradeoffs, as if they were still the Mighty And Unchallengeable British Empire. And in any case, the point of my post was the "suffering", not the "few".
  - multjoy 1mo ago
    The biggest issue is that at the time of the vote, nobody had any idea of what Brexit actually meant. The leave campaign could literally promise anything and a) they wouldn’t have to deliver it and b) everyone who voted for Brexit can reasonably suggest that they voted for something other than what was actually delivered. The best you can say about the Brexit vote is that 51% wanted something other than the status quo.
- tonyedgecombe 1mo ago
  The winners are still whining anyway.
  - teamonkey 1mo ago
    More like “we won, don’t mention it” It was recently the 10-year anniversary of the Brexit vote. Not a single firework.
UpsideDownRide 1mo ago
There is nothing inherent to democracy that says that everything needs a simple majority for a decision.
TulliusCicero 1mo ago
Democracies require supermajorities for stuff all the time, it's pretty typical, especially for constitutional changes. And in this case, it would also mean that Britain would've joined the EU with a 55%+ majority as well.

IndySun 1mo ago

55%, maybe. But that still leaves a divided country for decades afterwards. It was handled badly from start to finish. Many 'remainers' didn't take the threat serious enough. Never under estimate your opponent.

TheOtherHobbes 1mo ago
Cameron put a Eurosceptic in charge of the Remain campaign, and Nick Clegg - supposedly an arch Remainer - went to work for Meta after Cambridge Analytica and its contribution to Brexit became public knowledge. The public were conned. The oligarch-adjacent ruling faction of the ruling class knew exactly what they were doing, the lack of specificity for any Leave plan was deliberate, the lies and propaganda were cynical and calculated, and they were delighted with the result. Then they gave us Boris as the first of a succession of clown car comedy Prime Ministers, and started hyping Farage. It's all a stage set. The public in the UK have zero influence on any of these developments.
- hawk_ 1mo ago
  I blame Corbyn as much as Cameron if not more. Corbyn was supposed to represent the working class but because Remain could have benefited some Tories he backstabbed the working class and at least a whole generation if not 2 and for what?
  - SmashDan 1mo ago
    Corbyn is an old school leftist and has been anti-EU for a long long time. It's completely unsurprising he was no use here.
  - TulliusCicero 1mo ago
    Corbyn was an unusually terrible leader even by Labour standards. Amazing that some people still support him.
- 1718627440 1mo ago
  If the vote outcome is directly influenceable by campaigns, you can just let the campaign owners perform the decision. Campaigns only distribute information, voters still need to make a choice.

roenxi 1mo ago

Did they even have a referendum on joining the EU? Just skimming through, it looks like [0] they only had a referendum on EEC membership which sounds like it would predate the EU. It is a bit of an unfair ratchet where people can sidle in to the EU but require strong consensuses to leave. It should be symmetrical. Particularly when the scope of the EU seems to be a bit vague and regularly expanding to micromanage various aspects of life. It looks like they might be trying to rebuild the US federal government. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_membership_of_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_membership_of_t...

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 1mo ago
This brings to mind the government set up in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress: it takes 2/3rds to pass a law, but only 1/3rd to repeal it. The thinking being if a law isn't good/useful enough to garner 2/3rd support, it shouldn't be law. And if a law is so bad that it can't even get more than 1/3rd the people to support it, it should no longer be a law. Sadly, I don't think it'd work today. People are too divided, it's too easy to import the votes you need, and people are too lazy to understand a law beyond the headline or what the news tells them about it.
- TulliusCicero 1mo ago
  > And if a law is so bad that it can't even get more than 1/3rd the people to support it What? That's not what you wrote. If it only takes 1/3rd to repeal a law, then you need to keep up 2/3rds support indefinitely, not 1/3rd.
- nobody9999 1mo ago
  >Sadly, I don't think it'd work today. People are too divided, it's too easy to import the votes you need, and people are too lazy to understand a law beyond the headline or what the news tells them about it. And who and from where might folks "import" such votes? I don't understand what that means. Please do elucidate.