Isn’t democracy great? Or is democracy great only when it coincides with an approved outcome?
And it’s mainly morons who think this is in any way significant, worth linking to, or worth headlining on a web page(that’s no offense to you but you are the umpteenth person I have witnessed bring this up today). Of course some Brexit voters will be fretting over our future. It’s a brave new world with all the unknowns that come with that. It is in no way significant or moronic; it is completely natural.
Well, one wonders who did approve an outcome were 2 trillions worth of value in the world markets is lost and sinking the British pound was the desired outcome. (Although Trump was happy for that outcome)
What it is important to me in a democracy is that indeed, people can change their minds later, and I do think that is more likely after seeing that the proponents of Leaving did make promises that they did not intend to keep (the health care point to give the EU money to heath care was indeed a ruse), and their promises that it would be better for Britain are not really happening and seeing that long range most economists do not see the uncertainty to be beneficial, I then think that the Leave position will not be strong for long.
Yes. He’s Prime Minister, he rules the country, he can make these decisions. It’s not like breaking promises is anything new.
But if he had stood up instead, making a bold but arguably correct decision not to go through with it, maybe he would’ve been supported.
??? And what if it had been 97%. Or 18% or 7053%. It wasn’t, it was a bare majority a best. A 60/40 split is fairly definitive, but 52/48 in other circumstances would be within a margin of error.
Hindsight is 20/20, but he still has a chance to head this off at the pass. Not doing so while he has the chance will elicit even more regrets.
Withdrawing has caused a panic. Remaining would cause an upset but not a panic.
The margin is so tight, I think it’s not unreasonable. The panic this has caused is unprecedented, and it could lead to disaster. Isn’t it the PMs job to fix things like this, to do what’s best for the country and not destroy it on the whim of a public poll?
Nothing to lose, everything to gain.
Here’s NPR on David Cameron’s abrupt fall from power: After Brexit Vote, A Look At British Prime Minister David Cameron's Rise And Fall : Parallels : NPR
Okay here’s an interesting comment from a reader of The Guardian who anticipates that Cameron’s resignation is a ploy that will lead to the Brexit not being enacted.
It’s an image file, so here it is quoted in full:
Knock it off.
Personal insults are not permitted and this is clearly aimed at the poster instead of the group.
[ /Moderating ]
No offence intended to the poster. I did say mainly moronic not exclusively so. This, I feel, gave me some wiggle room for plausible deniability. I did think that the poster calling certain Brexit supporters moronic called for a similar rhetorical reply. It really is only natural for some Brexit supporters to be concerned over our future. Taking control over our own destiny is both exciting and scary. Add to this the movement to over-turn the referendum result and I felt justified pointing this out in the strongest of terms.
Again, my apologies to the poster who believes that only morons can find entering A Brave New World scary. You are not moronic just wrong, wrong, wrong.
Irish passport applications have apparently skyrocketed. There are millions in UK eligible for one via the Good Friday Agreement plus the grandparent rule of Irish citizenship.
No apology necessary. But I do believe that those who vote for a major change without fully considering the consequences beforehand, as apparently had several of those in the article to which I linked, are morons.
Blame Blair. Before 1997 Scottish Parliament Referendum it was the practice of the UK (for instance in 1979) to first set out the terms of the separation, Independence or policy and only then vote for it (either referendum or legislative). This was their invariable policy during Independence negotiations, for instance in the erstwhile British India.
Blair on the other hand (and he mentions this in his memoirs) decided in 1997 to go for a referendum on the principle f**irst before deciding on full powers; since he felt that if he did not the policy would fail.
I do think it is important that people know the terms of what is to be; or at least have a 1/2 referendum, one on the policy and another on the terms.
Clever.
I really hope that that is not the case. Hardship may be avoided but the people’s confidence in itself would sink to new lows. If Cameron really meant that he loves this country he better avoid breaking its spirit for a long long time.
Cameron will have nothing to do with it. The reports and prognostications I heard before the vote was that Cameron would have to resign if Brexit passed. I don’t see why anyone was surprised by the fact he did so. And since he is stepping down, and I doubt he is going to run for the spot he just quit, if Article 50 is not invoked by the new head of the Tories, it isn’t his fault.
That’s all quite true. I mostly wanted to inquire whether your problem here was with the result of the referendum, or with the small margin.
I’m sorry, but while I see the reasoning, I can’t agree. Yes, it will be a challenge, but it is not insurmountable. Gordian Knot, anyone?
And, if I may be cheeky, Parliament will have to spend so much time on the matter that they won’t have time to spend fucking us over.
I’m sorry, but this statement shows either a profound ignorance of the political process (Of any country) or an absolutely incredible amount of optimism. They can always find a way to screw us over. Usually without even thinking about it. 
Oh, sorry. Seems I missed your point and lumped you into the group who were arguing against me. My apologies.
I am not British so I don’t really know what life was like in the UK before, or what it could be after, or indeed what was promised by leaving (aside from what I read online by alarmists or the confused). Remaining made the most sense to me, and the margin of error is frustrating because if they had gone with a “60% majority” clause, which is not an unreasonable stipulation, it would’ve worked out for them better.
It is very much an unreasonable stipulation. What kind of football sport would survive if the team which is currently topping the league would always win except if it loses by two goals?
0-0: team wins
1-0: team wins
0-1: team wins
1-1: team wins
2-1: team wins
1-2: team wins
2-0: team wins
0-2: oh, all right!
You wouldn’t have much audience for that.
That’s a silly comparison. Unlike a soccer game, the goal of the Brexit vote wasn’t to put on a good game for the fans.
As was previously discussed upthread in this post, it makes good sense to require a supermajority for such a momentous, permanent change to the status quo such as this.
This is not a soccer game, or even an election for political office. The former is a trivial comparison, and the latter is only temporary. After all, an election for political office is not permanent, but only lasts for the length of the term of office. Last week’s vote, on the other hand, is a permanent change to the governmental structure of the UK.
You want there to be a supermajority for such a major change so that the results are incontrovertible, and wouldn’t likely be reversed in a (hypothetical) repeat vote.
Here in the U.S., our Constitution requires supermajorities in several instances, including a 3/4 supermajority of state legislatures needed to ratify changes to the Constitution itself. This is intentionally set up to make it difficult to make such changes, and to ensure that any changes are overwhelmingly supported.
Also, requiring a supermajority to make a change to the status quo goes both ways, so it is indeed fair.
For example, suppose that in the current Brexit vote, a supermajority of 60% was required to make a change to the status quo. In the actual election last week, the vote to “Leave” was 52%, which would be insufficient to change the status quo.
Now let’s suppose that the vote to “Leave” was 62% instead. This would be sufficient, and not insignificantly, also demonstrates a clear mandate for change (which a 52% vote does not).
So let’s suppose that the UK, in this example, does in fact leave the EU, and some time passes. By these rules, any subsequent referendum held thereafter (like a referendum to rejoin the EU, for example) would also have to have a 60% supermajority to make a change.