|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 24, 2023 12:33:19 GMT
Steve Baker, the so called hard man of Brexit, says he regrets that the Brexit referendum didn't require a supermajority of 60-40, as the close result split the country and made political progress difficult. He would like to see a 60-40 if a United Ireland referendum ever takes place. Should referenda require a supermajority? I suppose it depends how you define democracy, and I have to say, no one would be talking about this if remain had won. Steve Baker's comments should not be taken seriously, he has effectively changed sides probably to ensure his own political survival. |
|
|
|
Post by vlk on Oct 24, 2023 12:54:44 GMT
In some countries in order to have a valid referendum they have a required level of turnout. For example 70%.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2023 15:24:13 GMT
No,does parliament need a super majority? Ha ha. Nice one. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Oct 25, 2023 16:57:41 GMT
Steve Baker, the so called hard man of Brexit, says he regrets that the Brexit referendum didn't require a supermajority of 60-40, as the close result split the country and made political progress difficult. He would like to see a 60-40 if a United Ireland referendum ever takes place. Should referenda require a supermajority? I suppose it depends how you define democracy, and I have to say, no one would be talking about this if remain had won. Steve Baker's comments should not be taken seriously, he has effectively changed sides probably to ensure his own political survival. I read an interesting article on it this afternoon. He was addressing Northern Ireland, so his comments are easy to take at face value in that context. No NI minister would want a referendum they could possibly lose. But speculation is he sees another EU referendum within 10 years, and he's trying to ensure we stay out. If Steve Baker has changed sides then we really have won the argument! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2023 19:34:57 GMT
The problem with a referendum result such as the 2016 referendum, is that the margin of LEAVE versus REMAIN was so close that it was always susceptible to change withing weeks or months.
A referendum is like a photograph, it is merely a Snapshot of public opinion on one particular day, and the same referendum would have produced a different margin of LEAVE or REMAIN a week later.
This is what has happened - There has now been over one hundred opinion polls published, with all showing a majority of British people would now vote REMAIN - the last time any poll showed a small LEAVE lead was in April 2022.
We are now in a situation where most people want to be in the EU, and the referendum with its 3.8% LEAVE margin over REMAIN is obsolete, and no longer reflects public opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Oct 25, 2023 20:52:10 GMT
Steve Baker, the so called hard man of Brexit, says he regrets that the Brexit referendum didn't require a supermajority of 60-40, as the close result split the country and made political progress difficult. He would like to see a 60-40 if a United Ireland referendum ever takes place. Should referenda require a supermajority? only if applied retrospectively. I’d happily undo brexit if the reward was exterminating wankford and his cottage burning chums |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 25, 2023 21:12:58 GMT
The problem with a referendum result such as the 2016 referendum, is that the margin of LEAVE versus REMAIN was so close that it was always susceptible to change withing weeks or months. A referendum is like a photograph, it is merely a Snapshot of public opinion on one particular day, and the same referendum would have produced a different margin of LEAVE or REMAIN a week later. This is what has happened - There has now been over one hundred opinion polls published, with all showing a majority of British people would now vote REMAIN - the last time any poll showed a small LEAVE lead was in April 2022. We are now in a situation where most people want to be in the EU, and the referendum with its 3.8% LEAVE margin over REMAIN is obsolete, and no longer reflects public opinion.
So what? - I'm sure that the 2019 General Election does not reflect current Public Opinion. What is gained by continually trying to re-run past elections?. We had a vote - people voted to leave - we left - end of. If you want to have a vote to rejoin the EU nobody is stopping you but continually droning on about a decision that was made 7 years ago is pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 25, 2023 22:56:49 GMT
Steve Baker, the so called hard man of Brexit, says he regrets that the Brexit referendum didn't require a supermajority of 60-40, as the close result split the country and made political progress difficult. He would like to see a 60-40 if a United Ireland referendum ever takes place. Should referenda require a supermajority? I think there is a case for a good majority. Having seen the turmoil of the 2016 referendum which had a 52/48 majority it shows the divisions in society which can be raised. The problem is, when voting for a change, why should the 48% get their way to stay the same if 52% want it? 60-40 is a bit high. A majority of 1 seems a bit low. 51-49 would do. What do the Swiss do, they're always having referendums, aren't they? The electorate in this country is to easily persuaded and can change opinions dramatically depending on varying circumstances. I have no doubt that many of the lies during the referendum were accepted as true. I equally believe that many who voted were too busy getting on with their lives to do any research on what was involved. For me, I prefer the representative democracy with all its fault to the whims of the ill informed. So do the UK a favour and ban referendum. The population of Switzerland is less than 9M. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 25, 2023 23:05:06 GMT
The problem with a referendum result such as the 2016 referendum, is that the margin of LEAVE versus REMAIN was so close that it was always susceptible to change withing weeks or months. A referendum is like a photograph, it is merely a Snapshot of public opinion on one particular day, and the same referendum would have produced a different margin of LEAVE or REMAIN a week later. This is what has happened - There has now been over one hundred opinion polls published, with all showing a majority of British people would now vote REMAIN - the last time any poll showed a small LEAVE lead was in April 2022. We are now in a situation where most people want to be in the EU, and the referendum with its 3.8% LEAVE margin over REMAIN is obsolete, and no longer reflects public opinion.
So what? - I'm sure that the 2019 General Election does not reflect current Public Opinion. What is gained by continually trying to re-run past elections?. We had a vote - people voted to leave - we left - end of. If you want to have a vote to rejoin the EU nobody is stopping you but continually droning on about a decision that was made 7 years ago is pointless. I guess we will have another referendum on the EU as or when it appears to be the right thing to do, I've been suggesting about 40 years since the last one. 2056 Mind you I won't be around by then so no one can take the piss out of me if I'm wrong  |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Oct 25, 2023 23:54:44 GMT
Lets face it if there were another referendum and the results were thus: 17,410,742 voted to stay out and 17,410,743 voted to go back in, remoaners would use that ONE vote as enough to justify going back in. Yet they demand a super-majority when things don't go their way. It was Farage who said a 52-48 vote for remain would be "unfinished business". Why was that statement acceptable? |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Oct 26, 2023 4:49:07 GMT
It would have been over had we lost, irrespective of him. He'd have been the spent force told to get over it.
He was not and will never be Prime Minister.
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Oct 26, 2023 5:51:22 GMT
It would have been over had we lost, irrespective of him. He'd have been the spent force told to get over it. He was not and will never be Prime Minister. You can say that now. But, back in 2016, I think he and the other leading xenophobes would have stirred the Brexiters up so much that a legal challenge would have came about. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Oct 26, 2023 6:28:55 GMT
It would have been over had we lost, irrespective of him. He'd have been the spent force told to get over it. He was not and will never be Prime Minister. You can say that now. But, back in 2016, I think he and the other leading xenophobes would have stirred the Brexiters up so much that a legal challenge would have came about. You were given a voice but lost a referendum but have ever since shown a bitterness towards those who won a referendum, which now it has been basically overturned by dodgy politics and stealth you are still not happy. If the boot was on the other foot, I wonder how you would react? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Oct 26, 2023 6:37:33 GMT
You can say that now. But, back in 2016, I think he and the other leading xenophobes would have stirred the Brexiters up so much that a legal challenge would have came about. You were given a voice but lost a referendum but have ever since shown a bitterness towards those who won a referendum, which now it has been basically overturned by dodgy politics and stealth you are still not happy. If the boot was on the other foot, I wonder how you would react? That almost makes the argument that a supermajority is a reasonable idea. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Oct 26, 2023 6:41:35 GMT
You were given a voice but lost a referendum but have ever since shown a bitterness towards those who won a referendum, which now it has been basically overturned by dodgy politics and stealth you are still not happy. If the boot was on the other foot, I wonder how you would react? That almost makes the argument that a supermajority is a reasonable idea. In your mind perhaps. |
|
