Post-BRexit fallout and happenings

[robby]

@Velocity

Setting the threshold at 60% would have done the trick.

@Ramira

Why did not Cameron put a condition of some large percent and/or that all the Regions or the components of the UK must vote also in favor? It seems to me a kind of stupidity after the narrowness of the Scottish referendum to not to have made clear conditions of a full consensus among the parts of the UK!

@CarnalK

I suspect he was trying to avoid looking like he was gaming the system and was confident that Scotland and London would have enough weight to carry it.

@Ramira

Then he seems to deserve the scorn that is being heaped on him… what a stupid thing to do after the close call with the Scottish referendum and the history of the opinion polls with strong differences regionally about the EU… Very stupid risk to take. It is very hard to understand.

Agreed, similar points were made in this related thread here:

@robby

…You’d think that Cameron’s government would have set up the vote as requiring a supermajority (i.e. at least 3/5 or 2/3 or even 3/4 of the vote) to effect a change to the status quo, especially for such an important issue.

I’m not as familiar with voting rules in the U.K., but we have precedence for supermajority requirements here in the U.S. for important votes, including the 3/5 supermajority needed in the U.S. Senate to invoke cloture and cut off further debate, the 2/3 supermajority needed in the U.S. Senate to ratify a treaty, the 2/3 supermajority needed in Congress to override a presidential veto, and the 3/4 supermajority of state legislatures needed to ratify an amendment to the Constitution.

It seems odd that Cameron’s government would have allowed itself to be boxed into such a corner, and that the direction of the country could be altered by a simple majority vote, especially with the vote as close as was predicted.

@robby

The more I think about this (having only seriously paid attention to this in the last day or so), the more I think that it is absolutely ludicrous that the Brexit referendum was not set up from the start as requiring a supermajority to make a change to the status quo.

Not requiring a supermajority means that the outcome can be tipped simply by relative turnout. For example, I heard this morning that 75 percent of Brits 24 and younger backed a Remain vote, but that their turnout was relatively low as compared to older voters. One young voter who was interviewed on the BBC stated that many of her friends didn’t bother voting because they never seriously thought that a “Leave” vote had any chance of passing.

(Incidentally, the results of the referendum vote by age group is striking. It’s notable that the voters who wanted Brexit the least will have to live with the consequences the longest.)

I wouldn’t be surprised that if (hypothetically speaking) another referendum were held next week or next month that the outcome would be different. A requirement for a supermajority to make a change to the status quo avoids this back-and-forth.

@GuanoLad

I wonder if he can use this rule retroactively. A referendum is just a gauge for what the public wants, it’s not a final decision. Maybe he can still veto it and say the majority was too close to enact it.

@robby

That’s not what Cameron is saying this morning, and unfortunately, taking such action would smack of “moving the goalposts.”

@Flyer

Then EVERY modern election is illegitimate.

In 2008, Barack Obama was elected by 52.9% of 57.1%. By your logic, he’s not really president.

@robby

Elections for political office are different, because somebody has to be elected. If you require a supermajority for elective office, and a supermajority fails to be achieved, there is no status quo to return to. Either the office remains unfilled, or the incumbent remains in office (which is even more problematic, if it is even possible).

Also, an election for political office is not permanent, but only lasts for the length of the term of office. If a politician is elected with a simple majority or even with just a plurality of the vote, and doesn’t do a good job, then the voters can simply vote him/her out of office at the next election.

On the other hand, a permanent change (like a change to the Constitution in the U.S., or the Brexit referendum under discussion herein) should absolutely require a supermajority to change the status quo, IMHO.