Reply to: Bliar again

[PurpleGorilla]

65% is sufficient to shut both sides up.

But a 2/3rds majority would need 67%.

So you have a circumstance where well over a majority are for exit, and it still doesn't happen.

[AtW]

65% is sufficient to shut both sides up.

2/3 - one of the two is holding the who who lost and the other one is punching him

[SueEllen]

Imagine a 65% leave vote and we remaining under those circumstances!

65% is sufficient to shut both sides up.

[PurpleGorilla]

Maybe. Maybe.

Imagine a 65% leave vote and we remaining under those circumstances!

I read this the day before the referendum;

http://reaction.life/brexit-will-win/

The analysis was pretty damn good. So good I didn't share it for fear it might sway votes to remain!

[PurpleGorilla]

For big decisions that is not good enough - common approach is to have 2/3 vote in such cases

Maybe. Maybe.

Imagine a 65% leave vote and we remaining under those circumstances!

[SueEllen]

You could also argue that requiring 2/3 would result in NO decision ever being reached.

Not sure THAT would constitute progress.

But a decision is reached.

Either the vast majority want change or they don't.

[AtW]

So how else can you get a democratic decision? Many elections are won by very narrow margins too, is that an argument for not having any?

For big decisions that is not good enough - common approach is to have 2/3 vote in such cases

[shaunbhoy]

You can argue it's actually sensible to go for 2/3rd majorities as it reflects social change and allows people to debate the issues properly rather than in a hysterical fashion. For example in the church the ordination of women priests caused a split. However you could argue that having a 2/3rds majority rather a 50% one meant the split was less as the issue had to be debated repeatedly over the decades as society and the church changed.

You could also argue that requiring 2/3 would result in NO decision ever being reached.

Not sure THAT would constitute progress.

[SueEllen]

Only Scottish Residents got an indi vote. Being born in Scotland (me) I had no vote. That was a 50% threshold too. Didn't see much complaints against that.

The thing with 2/3rds majorities is that it takes a heck of a lot to achieve. 13th amendment in the USA and the recent female bishops vote took years longer to happen due to this effect. It can delay good as well as bad. It's all perspective

You can argue it's actually sensible to go for 2/3rd majorities as it reflects social change and allows people to debate the issues properly rather than in a hysterical fashion. For example in the church the ordination of women priests caused a split. However you could argue that having a 2/3rds majority rather a 50% one meant the split was less as the issue had to be debated repeatedly over the decades as society and the church changed.

[BrilloPad]

The EU result was not bad it was good. Should we thank Tony Blair?

[shaunbhoy]

General rule if you get your population to vote on EU matters via a referendum they are as likely to vote "No" as "Yes".

The French and Dutch both voted "No" to the EU treaty reform in the early 2000s so the matter was dropped until the Lisbon treaty came up.

Ireland has also vote "No". They had referendums about the Nice (2001) and Lisbon (2008) treaties. They then had repeat referendums on both treaties and voted "Yes" .

So simply cut out the repeat Referendums and it is job done.

Next....

[vetran]

Only Scottish Residents got an indi vote. Being born in Scotland (me) I had no vote. That was a 50% threshold too. Didn't see much complaints against that.


https://youtu.be/zNnh-KhiLm0

ScooterplastiScot was on your ignore list?

[PurpleGorilla]

Bliar again

It was not a democrat decision. It was a democrat advisory referendum with many flaws. Unlike nearly every other country in the world it did not allow ex-pats to vote furthermore, there was a very low threshold of 50% which is unheard in a binding referendum. Moreover, there was no clear alternative to the status quo.

Democracy does not give a mandate the majority to ignore the wishes of the minority. This was the misconception of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt where they tried to impose Sharia Law on the minority and what Mugabe is doing in Zimbabwe.

Brexit is really good for companies like Wetherspoon’s that want to cut workers’ rights and regulations and pay below minimum wage and voters who are too thick to work out that they will be a lot worse off after Brexit.

Only Scottish Residents got an indi vote. Being born in Scotland (me) I had no vote. That was a 50% threshold too. Didn't see much complaints against that.

The thing with 2/3rds majorities is that it takes a heck of a lot to achieve. 13th amendment in the USA and the recent female bishops vote took years longer to happen due to this effect. It can delay good as well as bad. It's all perspective.

You had to be living on the moon not to know the consequence of the brexit vote. It was debated to death. We had project fear, government, international governments, and the death of an MP and still people voted for brexit.

https://youtu.be/zNnh-KhiLm0

[Paddy]

So how else can you get a democratic decision? Many elections are won by very narrow margins too, is that an argument for not having any?

It was not a democrat decision. It was a democrat advisory referendum with many flaws. Unlike nearly every other country in the world it did not allow ex-pats to vote furthermore, there was a very low threshold of 50% which is unheard in a binding referendum. Moreover, there was no clear alternative to the status quo.

Democracy does not give a mandate the majority to ignore the wishes of the minority. This was the misconception of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt where they tried to impose Sharia Law on the minority and what Mugabe is doing in Zimbabwe.

Brexit is really good for companies like Wetherspoon’s that want to cut workers’ rights and regulations and pay below minimum wage and voters who are too thick to work out that they will be a lot worse off after Brexit.

[SueEllen]

Well we have only had One National Referendum in recent times, and in that we got the right answer.

The "right answer", of course, being the one that the majority actually voted for.

That is kind of the way that our democracy is meant to work. Is that something you have an issue with?

General rule if you get your population to vote on EU matters via a referendum they are as likely to vote "No" as "Yes".

The French and Dutch both voted "No" to the EU treaty reform in the early 2000s so the matter was dropped until the Lisbon treaty came up.

Ireland has also vote "No". They had referendums about the Nice (2001) and Lisbon (2008) treaties. They then had repeat referendums on both treaties and voted "Yes" .