The difference being that a GE can be repeated a few years down the line, if you don't like the outcome. Something like the EU referendum, that can not be undone, should have a minimum 2/3 majority of a >70% turnout, in order to exact a constitutional change.
Bear in mind our GE election system isn't one person one vote. If we had a PR type system or would be so much better...
NF himself said that 52-48 couldn't be regarded as decisive, but he was expecting it the other way.
The difference being that a GE can be repeated a few years down the line, if you don't like the outcome. Something like the EU referendum, that can not be undone, should have a minimum 2/3 majority of a >70% turnout, in order to exact a constitutional change.
Right, but would you also apply that same, almost unsurmountable, majority to proposed House of Lords reform, or a change from FPTP to proportional representation?
divisive majority
Sadly yes.
@footflaps I find it quite extraordinary you would suggest we should not have any Referendums on important issues. A Referendum is a very powerful tool to address significant cross party issues.
Why have votes at all Jamba? I mean, parliamentarians aren't specialists in the area they vote on or anything.
Wouldn't it be much better to let a committee of technical experts decide on issues?
I not enitrely clear why the bar for taking us of the EU should be so much higher than the one that got us in.
I not enitrely clear why the bar for taking us of the EU should be so much higher than the one that [s]got us in.[/s] kept us in
FTFY, we never got a choice about joining (or about Maastricht, or Lisbon)
I know that was rather my point.
Wouldn't it be much better to let a committee of technical experts decide on issues?
yup, basically how the communist system worked, no thanks
So 25% of the population voted remain yet you want us to vote with strings and conditions attached to stay within a undemocratic union?
One where if I don't agree with you I'm an idiot and a racist?
Right.
That's what the labour party used to do, remember Gordon Browns 'bigot' jibe.One where if I don't agree with you I'm an idiot and a racist?
As for the majority question, anything over 50% obviously. It will do democracy no good at all ignoring the vote. What would be the point of voting if the majorities decision is arrogantly dismissed?
Wouldn't it be much better to let a committee of technical experts decide on issues?
Ha ha ha! Brilliant! Let the 'technical' experts get rich from bribes more like!
How often do the ruling party get anything over 50%? Tories got 37% last time round.As for the majority question, anything over 50% obviously... What would be the point of voting if the majorities decision is arrogantly dismissed?
That's what the labour party used to do, remember Gordon Browns 'bigot' jibe.
No that's what Gordon Brown did. He told Gillian Duffy "you're a very good woman, you've served your community all your life". And then afterwards in the car when he thought the mike was switched off he called her a bigot.
According to three-quarters of Labour MPs the Labour Party needs to be led by someone like that - someone who can connect with voters but isn't necessarily decent and honest.
For constitutional or other major change in a company you need 75% of those voting for a special resolution.
The premise I believe is something that is potentially disproportionately disruptive to a company needs a very high threshold.
I offer no opinion on whether that should apply to anything else. I am going to leave you lot to fight that one out...
I'm of the opinion that in any binary-option referendum (i.e. not just this one) it should need a greater than 60/40 split to be considered "settled".
Any less than that should leave the matter open to further debate, because no side has established a clear enough mandate.
The problem we have is we want a definitive yes/no answer from a referendum when sometimes the genuine answer is [i]"we're not very sure"[/i].
it should need a greater than 60/40 split to be considered "settled".
Greater than 60/40 ? I think you set the bar too low Graham.
I reckon North Korea should be invited to join the EU they could teach everyone a thing or two about unanimous decisions - nothing happens in North Korea unless there's 100% agreement.
Mind you any changes to the Maastricht Treaty requires the unanimous agreement of all 27 Member States, so the EU presumably shares some of North Korea's goals of 100% agreement.
That's pretty much my thinking. A definitive vote one way or the other gives a clear mandate. The winners get on it, the losers get over it. Somewhere in the middle and there is more debate to be had. The vote isn't ignored, its just used as weight in the argument.I'm of the opinion that in any binary-option referendum (i.e. not just this one) it should need a greater than 60/40 split to be considered "settled".Any less than that should leave the matter open to further debate, because no side has established a clear enough mandate.
The problem we have is we want a definitive yes/no answer from a referendum when sometimes the genuine answer is "we're not very sure".
Greater than 60/40 ? I think you set the bar too low Graham.
I feel you mocking me ernie 😀
But I think it is a fair call, and not (just) because I don't like this particular referendum result.
Look at the Scottish IndyRef: 44.7 / 55.3 split with massive turnout (84.59%).
But that issue was clearly [i]not[/i] settled and is rumbling on, so it's hard to call that the "decisive majority" the OP was looking for.
On Brexit, [url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017 ]Farage made it clear[/url] that he would continue to campaign if it was a narrow 48/52 victory for Remain. He wanted a two-thirds/one-third win before he'd consider it decisive.
Maybe not 60/40 but somewhere around there sounds about right to me.
The point is that it leaves room for a third answer: [i]"We've all thought about it and we can't decisively agree"[/i].
The [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven ]bastard verdict[/url] perhaps? 😉
I reckon North Korea should be invited to join the EU they could teach everyone a thing or two about unanimous decisions - nothing happens in North Korea unless there's 100% agreement.
😀
Look at the Scottish IndyRef: 44.7 / 55.3 split with massive turnout (84.59%).But that issue was clearly not settled and is rumbling on, so it's hard to call that the "decisive majority" the OP was looking for.
If the Scottish Ref had been 60/40 Salmond and Sturgeon would still be pursuing independence. The dream will never die don't you know 😉
On Brexit, Farage made it clear that he would continue to campaign if it was a narrow 48/52 victory for Remain. He wanted a two-thirds/one-third win before he'd consider it decisive.
Strangely enough I attach very little importance to Nigel Farage's opinion on any matter, including what he personally thinks represents an acceptable decisive vote.
jambalaya - Member
...If the Scottish Ref had been 60/40 Salmond and Sturgeon would still be pursuing independence. The dream will never die don't you know
Yup, actual democracy looks really attractive when you're in a run down colony with demented remote overlords who can over rule your parliament and limit its powers. 🙂
If the Scottish Ref had been 60/40 Salmond and Sturgeon would still be pursuing independence.
Well true, but they'd have less voice and the "establishment" would have a greater mandate for saying (legally if necessary) [i]"The people have spoken - this matter is closed for a generation."[/i]
But yeah I suppose that is a greater issue: when there is one side campaigning for a change (as in IndyRef or Brexit), it is pretty much expected that if they lose then they will just campaign some more and try again.
Yet when the side supporting the status quo lose they are told to shut up, stop whining and accept democracy.
Perhaps change is therefore inevitable?
Strangely enough I attach very little importance to Nigel Farage's opinion on any matter
Very wise 😀
hora - MemberSo 25% of the population voted remain
I think it was actually about 25% of the population that voted to leave, but correct me if I'm wrong.
26% of the population, 37% of the electorate.
Same figures either way, it wasn't conclusive.
A lot of debate here about the amount of participation.
A decision as big as this should have been a mandatory vote, or with a minimum threshold of at least 85%+ turnout in order for it to be considered a fair and valid (binding?) vote.
This is something we can't overturn in 5 years when our choice turns out to have been a bad one. It's not just us voters who have to live with this, but the generations following us.
I'm sure it's been mentioned already, at least on other threads, but the big thing for me was the sheer number of lies that were told during the campaign. As well as thresholds for participation etc there needs to be something in place to police the information and propaganda. In the immortal words of Slim Charles
"If it's a lie, then we fight on that lie"
[i]So 25% of the population voted remain yet you want us to vote with strings and conditions attached to stay within a undemocratic union?
One where if I don't agree with you I'm an idiot and a racist?[/i]
"MEPs aren't elected directly by the voters of their home nations. I'm not going to get into the finite detail but it isn't the same as me chosing either a Lbr, Con, Green or other candidate to represent me."
The future of a country decided by the politically illiterate.
The future of a country decided by the politically illiterate
That is the fundamental principle of democracy with universal suffrage. See also financially illiterate, economically illiterate or just plain illiterate.
Except it isn't in the UK because we were sensible enough to produce a parliamentary democracy which means the elected representatives get to make the votes that count. All we need is for the representatives to have conscience and backbone and not just vote according to the whip.
No sbob 25% of the population voted remain.
Approx 16,100,000 v 17,500,000
None of us got to vote on the Maastricht or Lisbon Treaties
French had their constitution vote ignored. I wonder how popular is the EU amongst the actual people of Europe?
That's what we have elected representatives for Jamba
French had their constitution vote ignored. I wonder how popular is the EU amongst the actual people of Europe
France. Less and less popular based on family and friends I speak to. FN is highly eurosceptic and many on the left don't like the debt/gdp contraints of the euro as they want to borrow more. First responce to Bataclan was to effectively suspend Schengen. Austria could be on the edge too if Hofer gets elected. Hungary is having (I believe) a Referendum to "opt out" of any refugee quota (even if legally they could be compelled to accept under EU majority voting). Etc etc
That's what we have elected representatives for Jamba
I thought it was supposed to be a 60/40 requirement for constitutional change 😉
French had their constitution vote ignored
If by ignored you mean the European constitution being torn asunder and never implemented after they voted no then yes this is very much what happened.
Yikes Hora and Jamby facting us to death from the hinterland of their awareness, a place that is located anywhere near the town of True
Shudders
Decisive occurs as you near 60% and increases the further you get from it
jambalaya - Member
"[i]That's what we have elected representatives for Jamba[/i]"
I thought it was supposed to be a 60/40 requirement for constitutional
Not here. I'm a parliamentary sovereignty-ista 😉
I was mildly annoyed there was a referendum in the first place
anything less than 50% of total electorate can not be decisive IMO.
Really junkyard? The French devoted?
