It would seem to me that having a single in or out vote of the EU is a terrible way to gauge a nations engagement with issues as complex as immigration, jobs, health, education, sovereignty etc.
It leaves as many questions than answers. A lot of people tend to become aware of the issues and ramifications of policies only after the vote. It should be a process of engagement by the population. The nature of these ‘yes’ or ‘no’ votes always leads to some distortion from people who are simply pissed off and what to protest and show their anger. It doesn’t really help build any consensus on what to do next though.
You wouldn’t buy a house or a car in this manner. And if you did you always have the choice of selling it and buying another one when it didn’t turn out as sold to you or you found it didn’t fit your needs.
What Britain (and the rest of the EU needs) is a referendum in the UK that clearly encapsulates views on multiple items.
If citizens are given a vote for what they don’t want they should certainly be given a vote, after the proposals are NAILED DOWN for what they do want. If you want ‘Single common market’ this is what you have to abide by and don’t abide by etc.
No fudging or at least minimal fudging. The terms should be fully agreed by EU governments and British government before the next referendum.
If necessary a government could hold multiple referendums over 1 year to settle the question. It would also put pressure on the EU to create a framework that is able to react more quickly to citizens concerns.
And I do blame the inflexibility of the current EU leadership and structure just as much as opportunistic Tory/nationalistic politicians for this situation.
I’m sort of dodging your question, but the main problem that seems to be developing is no one has a clue what happens next. Within the UK government/cabinet itself, there’s little support for exit, and Cameron’s resigning - so whoever is going to be in power isn’t going to have much of a mandate, unless there’s another election, but if there’s another election, that to some extent will wind up being a “second” referendum anyway. I guess the two parties (“two” in itself is an assumption that may no longer be justified!) will be arguing about who can get a better deal? Even though their hands will be to a large extent tied by the other 17 countries or whatever that they’re negotiating with? (And are those countries legally supposed to have referenda to approve the negotiations?) That’ll be a weird election, although I guess the past one or two elections in Greece have been in a similar framework.
The EU president is telling the UK to get on with it, Merkel’s saying they can take their time, Scotland may or may not have a veto, the referendum I gather has no legal force in itself but is simply “advisory”, whatever the heck that means. There seems to be a bit of a mechanism in EU law to deal with this, but almost nothing in the current institutional framework of the UK.
I would not be surprised if in a year or two people look back and this “Oh yeah … that was a thing that happened. And meant nothing.” Sort of like those earlier EU referendums that were vaguely annulled by … um … well, I’m not sure what happened with those. I think it was “No, wrong - please vote again.” So, no, I don’t think there’s going to be a second referendum, but things are likely to remain unclear for quite a long time, and I’d lay even odds on the referendum issue being housed indefinitely in the same warehouse as Indiana Jones’ lost ark of the covenant. I’d like to say that the democratic deficit in the EU will have been revealed, but, well, I didn’t think that was much of a secret anyway.
TLDR: referendums are often a dumb way to decide on policy.
It was a terrible way to deal with a complex and nuanced issue. All of this should have been thought through before. But its too late now.
As you said, the EU leadership should have been more flexible. They rejected every single one of the UK’s requests, so it seems redundant to have a referendum on separate issues. The EU and Juncker are resistant to reform. The deal was ‘all or nothing’ and the EU made that very clear.
A referendum on the referendum? Voting is the opiate of the people so if anything would ensure Britons remain plugged into the EuroMatrix despite Brexit more voting would.
Actually, before they need a second referendum, they’ll need to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act. By law, they cannot break from the EU unless that is repealed because it’s still law. There’s nothing in the UK Constitution (because they have no written Constitution) that says the MP’s votes have to follow the will of the majority of the people. I hope the MP’s do what is in the best interests of the whole of Great Britain.
That’s why I don’t vote. It’s not in my best interests, despite constant hectoring from petty bureaucrats to plug back into The Matrix by registering to vote.
One reads about how a lot of Brits are suddenly googling “EU” , many not having paid much attention prior. Maybe it makes sense to educate the masses and see if this is really what the British people want to do. Not become part of Europe, risk losing Scotland and the dissolution of the United Kingdom.
Maybe it needs a 2/3rd majority to be counted as the “will of the people”.
The MPs should not just wantonly disregard the “will of the people” either. Kings and Queens who have done that have fallen on their swords or lost their heads.
What does Her Majesty the Queen have to say about all this? Didn’t she used to have daily afternoon tea with the PM (at least when the PM was Thatcher)? Would what she said carry any weight? Should she say anything at all or just keep zipped?
I think that drastic changes like this shouldn’t be decided by simple-majority referendum; they should be decided by elected representatives who are much better informed. But if they are to be decided by referendum, it should be by a supermajority (3/5 or 2/3). Otherwise you can end up getting 51% of the population lording it over 49%. Tyranny of the majority.
Simple-majority referendums are fine for decisions of less drastic consequence.
The people have spoken. The statists and tranny progs had plenty of time to make their case, but they couldn’t make the sale and now it’s time for them to shut up.
Say… we’re not talking about that 4chan prank, are we?
Somehow I doubt that anyone would have been having a second referendum if the result had gone the other way. This thread is like coming into a Taiwanese kitchen in the middle of the night, turning on the light and seeing all of the cockroaches.
Maybe instead of a super majority, how about a super, super majority? I’m surprised that some of the lefties here haven’t proposed a 101% required majority.
[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]Somehow I doubt that anyone would have been having a second referendum if the result had gone the other way. This thread is like coming into a Taiwanese kitchen in the middle of the night, turning on the light and seeing all of the cockroaches.
Maybe instead of a super majority, how about a super, super majority? I’m surprised that some of the lefties here haven’t proposed a 101% required majority.[/quote]
Read the OP. You’ve no trouble ranting out long diatribes of obscure stuff but reading seems more challenging.
The point of a second referendum is to clarify what people WANT which is a lot more Useful than knowing what they DONT WANT.
Knowing what somebody doesn’t want is no good if you don’t know what they want. As we all know, nothing is for free. Seems a lot of voters were sold a pup , knew they wanted less immigration but didn’t understand the full ramifications of making a drastic step of leaving the EU. Told some fantasies by opportunistic politicians about selling to commonwealth countries or being able to negotiate trade deals with EU countries directly which is impossible. Told they will get access to current market without being able to follow EEA rules…impossible. Told lies that their health service would be better because of exiting the EU.
No, we all know what the OP is about. It’s about sour grapes.
You act like everyone who voted in was Immanuel Kant or Voltaire, and everyone who voted out was Baldrick from Blackadder. There are plenty of uninformed, confused people on both sides of the aisle. That’s democracy though. Either you believe in it or you don’t, warts and all; you don’t get to keep voting again until you get it right though. Well, maybe in Ireland you do. Maybe the Anglo Saxons aren’t so gullible after all.
Do you want me to tell you how you come off in your responses and odd TV show references and your sudden showing up on this forum and your focus on ‘race’…pretty weird, possibly racist and xenophobic and stuck in your own world mate
