So their remain vote was to remain in bed?
Ain’t that a savage lesson in realpolitik?
I accept the premise that “the voters who wanted Brexit the least will have to live with the consequences the longest” but given the chronic apathy I don’t have much sympathy for their predicament.
The generation which most wanted to leave were those who toughed it out in WWII and aftermath. I reckon they have paid their dues for the cause.
Your math is sadly lacking, the baby boomers who voted for this are largely those born after WW II. The selfish “me generation”. It’s nonsense that an 80 year old retired person who never needs a job again has a say in this but a 16-17 year old who has to live with the consequences the rest of their life does not.
… and Britain in the 70s & 80s was Easy Street all the way too. :smack:
I think it’s an appalling bad decision but then again decisions are made by those who turn up. Not those who check their iPhone, find out that voting isn’t the same as liking the Remain posts on Facebook and consequently decide to stay at home to watch Britain’s Got Talent instead.
I actually thought the leave results in Scotland were respectable enough at roughly 60-40-ish. Considering every major party political leader in Scotland were in favour of Remain the near 40% number wasn’t too shabby. I had feared inner-London levels of Remain percentages in Scotland. Add to this Scots did not vote in massive numbers. I believe our dislike of the EU is not quite as great as in England, but our fondness of the EU is not as great as many believe.
72% turnout is quite high, really.
By UK standards, yes.
I haven’t yet found a report of what proportion of younger Britain turned out, but I’ve heard anecdotes from colleagues in the UK that the higher than average turnout was mainly due to better than average participation by the older age groups. I may stand corrected when I locate those results. Historically the gap nudges 2:1.
Some morons, having not fully considered the consequences earlier, now regret their “Leave” votes: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/25/politics/uk-referendum-regrexit/index.html
If I was PM of Britain, I would not have resigned. I would’ve stood up, refused to go along with the results, explained clearly and firmly that this was too big and dangerous a thing to do, it could destroy the country and damage the EU in the process, and as the Government’s job is to look after the country, the decision would lay with them, which would be to ignore the referendum results on the basis the majority was too close to be definitive, and remain in the EU. Bugger what the leader of an opposing party says, it’s too huge a thing to be taken so lightly and rashly.
Heh, aren’t some of those a hoot!
rofl
Will be a very handy cautionary tale next time somebody bleats “I don’t bother voting because it doesn’t count”. Pity that it’s price is so high.
Didn’t they have four months to make that case?
Wasn’t there a couple of press conference, a speech from the dispatch box perhaps … maybe even a spot on Panorama? Didn’t Fleet Street have any op eds?
If the parameters had required a 60% supermajority, do you reckon the Leave campaign would have said “fair cop”? Or there’d not have been screams of indignant outrage at pollies ignoring the wishes of the electorate?
If you’re going to try this “Sorry, we really didn’t mean to do that, please just ignore us and we’ll sit in the naughty chair for a while” argument, remember it well next time you complain about governments not listening to the voters.
…of the popular vote you had called for?
The opposing party was not David Cameron’s problem. His problem was within his own party. Personally, I would not have minded the PM staying on, but the pressure he was under from his own MP’s was immense. Once you loose the backing of roughly half your own party then it’s impossible to govern.
Suppose the majority had been 62% instead of 52%? (Support for leaving the EU in the Czech Republic is currently at that level).
If I had been PM of the UK, I would not have called a referendum at all. Cameron called it since he thought he would win easily. Gave a straight in/out choice. Did not introduce some sort of firebreak. When he knew he could not count upon his own party to support him, hell the main opposition guy was his long-standing ally.This is not shooting yourself in the foot. This is calling in an airstrike on your position.
I suspect Farage and Boris are also secretly amongst the list of morons who so regret.
Then this is what Cameron would essentially have done:
Calls referendum: “We are holding referendum on whether to stay in or leave the EU.”
Referendum: Majority votes Leave.
“Sorry, even though I put forth the referendum, I’m not going to respect it - the very referendum that I myself called for.”
Essentially, “You can choose with A or B, but I will only honor B.”
Imagine if a PM held such a referendum, and the majority voted Remain, but then the PM, afterwards, said, “Sorry, I’m still withdrawing us from the EU anyway?”
It should be pointed out that the whole primacy of EEC (and later EU) law came through a series of cases of the ECJ and were actually bitterly opposed by the Member States at the time. It was at first not inherent in the treaties. But it was well established by 1973 when the UK joined.
Specifically Costa v ENEL.
I like the way you can read David Cameron’s mind. No-one but David Cameron knows truly why he called a referendum. It’s safe to assume Cameron is not an idiot though. So the “win easily” reason is in all likelihood wrong. Giving Cameron some intellectual credit we have to look elsewhere for the reasons why. I would say the first reason was Ukip and the threat Ukip seemed to pose to the tories at the ballot box. Secondly, to keep his party united in the run-up to the 2015 GE.
Sure, im sure Cameron believed he could win the referendum. But his main reasons for promising one were desperation and short-termism *not *over-confidence.
And immediately trigger a no-confidence vote. If he foresaw resigning, it might have been a good tactic.
Considering that Farage opened the evening by conceding, I actually do think that might have happened. Or maybe there would be indignant outrage, but it wouldn’t matter because a supermajority is an entirely sensible thing to require for a change this momentous and disruptive. At the very least, a second vote held after a couple of months, to make sure that the public really does want to shoot itself in the foot.
The average website I design has more safeguards against user error than the UK referendum did. (“Unsaved progress will be lost. Are you sure you want to leave the EU? This action cannot be undone.”)