UK EU In/Out referendum-:Polling day thread.

[UDS]

But (a) it’s too late. If a supermajority requirement is to have political and democratic legitimacy, it has to be part of the referendum terms at the outset. You can’t reverse-engineer it after the referendum has been held, as a way of avoiding an outcome that you don’t like.

And (b) they create their own problems. Suppose there had been a 60% supermajority requirement. A result for “leave” anywhere in the 50%-60% range would create a situation where the only effect of the referendum was to undermine the legitimacy and stability of the UK’s participation in the EU, without actually doing anything positive.

[robby]

@UDS

But (a) it’s too late. If a supermajority requirement is to have political and democratic legitimacy, it has to be part of the referendum terms at the outset. You can’t reverse-engineer it after the referendum has been held, as a way of avoiding an outcome that you don’t like.

Agreed, it should have been set up from the start as requiring a supermajority, and it is asinine (IMHO) that it was not.

@UDS

And (b) they create their own problems. Suppose there had been a 60% supermajority requirement. A result for “leave” anywhere in the 50%-60% range would create a situation where the only effect of the referendum was to undermine the legitimacy and stability of the UK’s participation in the EU, without actually doing anything positive.

I disagree. Such a vote could have indeed done something positive. It would tell UK governmental leaders that people were unhappy with certain aspects of the current situation, and that they needed to make changes. It would also send a message to EU leaders that they needed to make changes, or risk losing the UK in a future referendum. The necessary changes could then have been made while still maintaining EU membership.

Such a result would give a mandate for a relatively minor course change in policy, as opposed to completely reversing course.

[doorhinge]

@robby

That’s a silly comparison…

…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.

(post shortened)

That is a silly comparison. If things were different, things would be different. Soccer games, elections, and referendums have rules in place before the event takes place. There was no (past tense) supermajority requirement for BREXIT.

[robby]

@doorhinge

…Soccer games, elections, and referendums have rules in place before the event takes place. There was no (past tense) supermajority requirement for BREXIT.

I agree with you, with one caveat. The caveat is that the referendum is, legally speaking, a glorified opinion poll. Unlike an election for political office, the results of the referendum have no legal significance. Legally speaking, the UK government has to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty for anything to actually change. At any time, the government could simply state that there was not a clear mandate for a change and reject the results, or go ahead and hold another referendum (though either action could be political suicide at this point).

In any event, holding the referendum the way they did was simply breathtaking in its stupidity on the part of the PM and his government.

I heard a political scientist talking about this on NPR yesterday. He stated that it was lunacy to set up a situation where 43 years of treaties and trade agreements could be reversed by a simple majority vote in a glorified opinion poll by the general public. The general public simply does not have the background or the full picture to make an intelligent decision.

This is why true direct democracy (as opposed to representative democracy) is a recipe for chaos. Even the ancient Athenians realized this, which is why they set up a balance between the Assembly (where direct democracy was exercised) and other governmental institutions.

In a representative democracy, the people elect leaders who are expected to make good decisions, and who are then responsible for the consequences of those decisions. If you hand a major decision over to the people, especially one that basically boils down to maintaining or rejecting the status quo, some people will vote to make a change simply as a protest vote – even if what they are protesting has nothing to do with what is actually being voted on.

The whole situation was a recipe for disaster from the start, and should have been better thought out from the beginning.

If it was decided that a referendum was necessary for political reasons, at a minimum a high bar should have been set up from the start, which should have included a supermajority requirement for any change to the status quo.

[mr_wolf]

Sigh. Yes and in referendums there is no inflatable ball. And people can vote without having to wear shorts, either.

I am somewhat surprised by the antidemocratic outpour witnessed in this website when faced with true democracy and the outcome doesn’t fit their worldview. I am almost sure that if it had been different, there wouldn’t be the same fervour in pointing out the downsides of the process.

And for you who says the status quo side should have had the odds skewed in their favour I ask you, why? Why should they? And for that matter, the status quo of whom? For many people who voted to leave what they have right now is the change, and what they want is the status quo they had before and never had the chance to vote either way.

[Dr.Drake]

@mr_wolf

And for you who says the status quo side should have had the odds skewed in their favour I ask you, why? Why should they? And for that matter, the status quo of whom? For many people who voted to leave what they have right now is the change, and what they want is the status quo they had before and never had the chance to vote either way.

Serious answer: because we want what’s best for the country and for the world in the long term, and sometimes the will of the majority is a piss-poor way to achieve that.

I do think we have to respect the results of the referendum, but I also think such a referendum should never have been called, even if the government knew a majority was against continued EU membership. Because sometimes the experts really do know more than the man on the street, and that’s why we have people whose job it is to know more than my uniformed common-sense / media-influenced unscientific beliefs.

[Johnny_Ace]

@mr_wolf

Sigh. Yes and in referendums there is no inflatable ball. And people can vote without having to wear shorts, either.

I am somewhat surprised by the antidemocratic outpour witnessed in this website when faced with true democracy and the outcome doesn’t fit their worldview. I am almost sure that if it had been different, there wouldn’t be the same fervour in pointing out the downsides of the process.

And for you who says the status quo side should have had the odds skewed in their favour I ask you, why? Why should they? And for that matter, the status quo of whom? For many people who voted to leave what they have right now is the change, and what they want is the status quo they had before and never had the chance to vote either way.

Basically, ‘pure’ democracy is highly vulnerable to demagoguery. In theory, ‘one man, one vote’ is satisfying, but in reality the vast majority of voters don’t have sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision. So they vote based on what sounds good to them or what they had for breakfast the morning of the vote.

If Brits had been able to see the effects of the last several days before they voted, what odds would you give that Leave would win?

[robby]

@mr_wolf

…I am somewhat surprised by the antidemocratic outpour witnessed in this website when faced with true democracy and the outcome doesn’t fit their worldview. I am almost sure that if it had been different, there wouldn’t be the same fervour in pointing out the downsides of the process.

From what I’ve read, the Conservative government was so sure that the “Remain” vote would prevail that they did not foresee the need to put in any safeguards like a supermajority requirement, and that to do so might have reeked of political cowardice. However, the real cowardice was caving in to the demands of the right-wing members of the party and UKIP, especially when the government was so sure that a “Leave” result would be catastrophic (as is indeed playing out now). The government chose short-term political expediency over the risk of a disaster.

In any event, there is a stark difference between representative democracy and direct democracy. Being in favor of the former in lieu of the latter does not make one anti-democratic.

@mr_wolf

…And for you who says the status quo side should have had the odds skewed in their favour I ask you, why? Why should they? And for that matter, the status quo of whom? For many people who voted to leave what they have right now is the change, and what they want is the status quo they had before and never had the chance to vote either way.

The UK has been a member of the EU and its predecessor organization(s) for over 43 years. By any definition, that constitutes the status quo. In addition, in the last British referendum on EU membership back in 1975, the vote to remain in the European Community (Common Market) was 67.2% in favor. Though a supermajority was not required in that referendum either, should not a vote to reverse this not have required a similar majority?

As someone wrote here:

A vote which is close to 50% - 50%, (and it was foreseeable to be close to 50% - 50%) is highly [dependent] on random chance: mood, weather, recent events which stir up emotions but are insignificant long-term, and other temporary factors which might change the result a percent or two in a very short time period. So one could argue that Britain let random chance and temporary mood to decide its long term values and strategies.

@Dr.Drake

Serious answer: because we want what’s best for the country and for the world in the long term, and sometimes the will of the majority is a piss-poor way to achieve that.

I do think we have to respect the results of the referendum, but I also think such a referendum should never have been called, even if the government knew a majority was against continued EU membership. Because sometimes the experts really do know more than the man on the street, and that’s why we have people whose job it is to know more than my uniformed common-sense / media-influenced unscientific beliefs.

Exactly. A pure democracy is not the best way to run things. Sometimes it really is best to trust the experts, but to also hold them accountable.

To take this to a ludicrous extreme: would you fly on a commercial airliner in which the passengers voted on how much fuel should be loaded onboard prior to taking off? Or would you trust that the experts that you have hired to fly the plane know what they are doing?

[Quartz]

@robby

especially when the government was so sure that a “Leave” result would be catastrophic (as is indeed playing out now).

So far there has been no catastrophe. Try looking at the FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 over a range of 5 years or more.

[robby]

@Quartz

So far there has been no catastrophe. Try looking at the FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 over a range of 5 years or more.

Since the results of the vote, the pound has dropped to its lowest level in more than 30 years.

The FTSE 250 fell 7% yesterday. This was after it tumbled 7.2% on Friday, its worst one-day drop since 1987. In total it has now dropped 13.6% since the Brexit vote. There is no firm definition of what constitutes a stock market crash, but a double-digit dip in two days is getting awfully close.

And nothing (legally speaking) has actually happened yet. As we speak, the UK is still in the EU. If the Brexit actually takes place, far worse may happen to the British economy.

[AK84]

Nigel Farage having a jolly good time in the EU parliament.

[Quartz]

@robby

Since the results of the vote, the pound has dropped to its lowest level in more than 30 years.

And guess what? The pound and FTSE are heading back up. The FTSE 250 is up 500 points since the 27th, and the pound is gradually climbing back against both the dollar and the euro

[Quartz]

A friend has just commented, ‘The turmoil was mainly book squaring by a City which had made the wrong bet rather than genuine panic.’

[Dr.Drake]

@Quartz

And guess what? The pound and FTSE are heading back up. The FTSE 250 is up 500 points since the 27th, and the pound is gradually climbing back against both the dollar and the euro

Oh, good. So everything is settled now, and we don’t have to worry about any further consequences. Well, that was a rough couple of days!

More seriously, this is probably the markets reacting to the voices of calm from world leaders and the realization that the UK and EU are, in fact, together for another couple of years. Please don’t kid yourself that there will be no economic impact though. The huge loss of confidence in Britain is going to see a shift of the movement of money, and the net effect isn’t going to be money moving into the UK. The pound will certain feel that.

(Also, dead cats bounce, though I think this cat is merely wounded.)

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Here’s HBO’s John Oliver on Brexit - very funny.

Before the vote: Brexit: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) - YouTube

And after: - YouTube

[mascaroni]

@Johnny_Ace

…In theory, ‘one man, one vote’ is satisfying, but in reality the vast majority of voters don’t have sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision…

Yes, we need a solution to deal with the untermenschen.

Is that what you’re saying?

[Dr.Drake]

@mascaroni

Yes, we need a solution to deal with the untermenschen.

Is that what you’re saying?

If you took a perfectly democratic referendum on whether we should have income tax, what do you think the answer would be?

[mr_wolf]

@Dr.Drake

If you took a perfectly democratic referendum on whether we should have income tax, what do you think the answer would be?

Can I have a go at that?

1. Referendum says no more taxes. At all.

2. Party.

3. Sobering up.

4. Anarchy.

5. Near civil war.

6. Informal referendum to have a 2nd referendum.

7. 2nd referendum says we should have income tax.

8. Normal life. National history one lesson more mature.

YMMV

[Johnny_Ace]

@mascaroni

Yes, we need a solution to deal with the untermenschen.

Is that what you’re saying?

I’m stating a fact. You’re just trying to overstate for effect.

[mascaroni]

@Johnny_Ace

I’m stating a fact. You’re just trying to overstate for effect.

Where did you come by the “fact” that the vast majority of voters don’t have sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision?

If true, what do you suggest? A dictatorship?

Or is it that you’re saying that the Remain voters, who you obviously agree with, are the only ones capable of making an informed decision? Democracy as long as you agree with it?