61–70 of 104 posts
this statement is idiotic: "We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based (on) a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum" it would mean infinite loop of referendums without consensus.
That's not how democracy works. If there is a referendum, and you don't like the result, you don't just do a second referendum. If you'd do that, you could achieve any result you want, just by doing it over and over until. Due to voter's fatigue and/or daily sentiment, results will vary, so you can pick a result by deciding when to stop. It might make sense (though still be questionable) to repeat the vote if major f…
That's not how democracy works. If there is a referendum, and you don't like the result, you don't just do a second referendum. If you'd do that, you could achieve any result you want, just by doing it over and over until. Due to voter's fatigue and/or daily sentiment, results will vary, so you can pick a result by deciding when to stop. It might make sense (though still be questionable) to repeat the vote if major f…
Another referendum is unlikely, but the next elections might have the same role. What if the next elected prime minister is elected on the promise of staying in the EU?
I don't think a second UK referendum is realistic and I'm personally pinning my hopes on a second Scottish Independence referendum, but there is no doubt that the close result is being incredibly divisive. I never thought I'd agree with Nigel Farage, but he did say: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way" Of course, he meant a 52-48 Remain win - but I think the same principle holds eit…
If exit negotiations take a few years, and the European wanted to offer the Brits a face-saving way to change their minds, they could adopt some internal reforms / offer Britain a better deal. Wouldn't have to be a perfect deal, just good enough to justify having another vote.
That's not how democracy works. If there is a referendum, and you don't like the result, you don't just do a second referendum. If you'd do that, you could achieve any result you want, just by doing it over and over until. Due to voter's fatigue and/or daily sentiment, results will vary, so you can pick a result by deciding when to stop. It might make sense (though still be questionable) to repeat the vote if major f…
(Post edited after I was corrected about the petition's original creation date)
That's not how democracy works. If there is a referendum, and you don't like the result, you don't just do a second referendum. If you'd do that, you could achieve any result you want, just by doing it over and over until. Due to voter's fatigue and/or daily sentiment, results will vary, so you can pick a result by deciding when to stop. It might make sense (though still be questionable) to repeat the vote if major f…
I don't think a second UK referendum is realistic and I'm personally pinning my hopes on a second Scottish Independence referendum, but there is no doubt that the close result is being incredibly divisive. I never thought I'd agree with Nigel Farage, but he did say: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way" Of course, he meant a 52-48 Remain win - but I think the same principle holds eit…
Those 50 and a change results remind me of the quote about Versailles = "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years" Nothing is solved. both remain and leave need 60+ to claim a mandate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I think a (major) referendum should be voted twice even with just a week difference. A lot of people most probably didn't vote because they assumed the result from the pre-vote pools and for other various reasons. Now everyone is alarm, they won't be leaving it up to chance.
If they didn't vote because they assumed some result, perhaps they are not as passionate about their position and should not get to vote a second time.
After France and the Netherlands rejected the original proposed European Constitution (basically confirming the EU as a socialist superstate), they came up with the Lisbon treaty. When Ireland rejected the Lisbon treaty, they were made to vote again one year later. I would say that some form of a second Brexit vote with slightly changed conditions would be a very EU-like thing to pull.
The Lisbon treaty was a result of complex negotiation, and Ireland was an outlier, requiring a constitutional change to implement the change. The change hadn't been effectively communicated, hence the negative initial vote. When it eventually passed, it was after a number of small concessions had been made to the terms of the negotiated treaty, and after a massive campaign to let the people understand what was at stake. The referendum also made it absolutely clear what the "next step" was for politicians, exactly what their mandate was, and exactly what the procedural effect would be.
Brexit, on the other hand, stated a simple (probably overly simple) question, with absolutely no details as to what the exit strategy would be (and actually no legal status either; parliament could legally choose to ignore the referendum results). There was no date attached to the question, no procedural detail, no mandate to perform the exit in any particular way, no bureaucratic clarity whatsoever. There were no "conditions" that could be "slightly changed" in a re-run. This was a blunt-force thwack with no nuance, no subtlety, and no room for renegotiation with the people.
In short, the Brexit referendum was about the least EU-like thing the UK could've pulled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those 50 and a change results remind me of the quote about Versailles = "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years" Nothing is solved. both remain and leave need 60+ to claim a mandate.
At first I thought that simple majority is unfair for decisions so important as this one. But I am not so sure now. Demanding a qualified majority introduces a bias towards the status quo. In fact, demanding >60 % is equal to granting just a >40 % outcome for the “Leave” option to win. And why should either, or especially the status quo, be favored in a case like this?