2nd EU referendum raised by Farage

[Infinite Chaos]

~ There are less than six weeks until voters go to the polls to decide whether they want the UK to stay in or leave the European Union.The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it." ~ Link.

This may backfire in the same way there was an initial backfire after the Scottish Referendum when Sturgeon raised the possibility of a re-run of that vote.

One thing for sure, the Brexit camp won't support a re-run if they win by a small margin..

 

[joG]

This may backfire in the same way there was an initial backfire after the Scottish Referendum when Sturgeon raised the possibility of a re-run of that vote.

One thing for sure, the Brexit camp won't support a re-run if they win by a small margin..

The real topic should be that the referendum is poorly constructed for the type of issue. The probability of achieving legitimacy is just not there, unless there is an overwhelming majority one way or the other.

 

[gunner]

The real topic should be that the referendum is poorly constructed for the type of issue. The probability of achieving legitimacy is just not there, unless there is an overwhelming majority one way or the other.

How is it poorly constructed?

 

[Carjosse]

You cannot be talking about a second referendum when the first has not even happened yet. That is just stupid logic and it sounds like he is admitting loss already. Quebec only stayed part of Canada with 50.58% of the vote and we did not have a second referendum.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

~ it sounds like he is admitting loss already ~

Exactly my thinking. Funny on the BBC discussion page on this that anyone even suggesting that he's admitting loss is severely downvoted and anyone saying we must have however many referenda till we get the required vote are upvoted.

 

[Chagos]

The real topic should be that the referendum is poorly constructed for the type of issue. The probability of achieving legitimacy is just not there, unless there is an overwhelming majority one way or the other.

You advocating Soviet or GDR election results are required to create legitimacy of whatever outcome?

WTH bugs you about majority vote? Too democratic?

 

[joG]

How is it poorly constructed?

The referendum should have defined which set of changes in the EU constitution required renegotiation and which an opt-out clause. The second step would have been a vote on whether or not the outcome of negotiations was sufficient. It also does not address the deepening of the EU enough clearly. This is important, as the deepening process is usually the reverse side of a loss of sovereignty. The limits should be defined, when a referendum is required. Otherwise the same will happen as before and sovereignty will seep away again and again undermine legitimacy.

 

[joG]

You advocating Soviet or GDR election results are required to create legitimacy of whatever outcome?

WTH bugs you about majority vote? Too democratic?

Usually a change in a country's constitution requires a majority well above that for normal legislation. Often it is 2/3rds or even 3/4ers of the vote. There can at the same time be an additional requirement of a certain proportion of voters participating in order to make the vote or referendum valid. But this is all quite standard stuff. So, should a referendum that deals with the fundamental basis of the constitution and national sovereignty require less? After all, its outcome can potentially impact the lives of every citizen in very substantial ways.

 

[gunner]

The referendum should have defined which set of changes in the EU constitution required renegotiation and which an opt-out clause. The second step would have been a vote on whether or not the outcome of negotiations was sufficient. It also does not address the deepening of the EU enough clearly. This is important, as the deepening process is usually the reverse side of a loss of sovereignty. The limits should be defined, when a referendum is required. Otherwise the same will happen as before and sovereignty will seep away again and again undermine legitimacy.

I don't think it practical to keep having referendum over every part of negotiations. For one, you would lose public interest, and two it would be confusing for most. It's very simple, in or out. To think Cameron gained meaningful concessions would be foolish; it is what it is. Moreover, the debate (if you can call it that) has been farcical. To me, it confirms what I've said for a long time, no one really knows the outcome, if we leave. And trying to get a balanced view is very difficult. Everyone has a vested interest, one way or the other.

 

[Andalublue]

The referendum should have defined which set of changes in the EU constitution required renegotiation and which an opt-out clause. The second step would have been a vote on whether or not the outcome of negotiations was sufficient. It also does not address the deepening of the EU enough clearly. This is important, as the deepening process is usually the reverse side of a loss of sovereignty. The limits should be defined, when a referendum is required. Otherwise the same will happen as before and sovereignty will seep away again and again undermine legitimacy.

It's a vote on Britain's membership, not on what reforms the EU needs to effect.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You advocating Soviet or GDR election results are required to create legitimacy of whatever outcome?

WTH bugs you about majority vote? Too democratic?

A slim simple majority vote on a complex issue does not reflect a majority population preference either way.

 

[joG]

I don't think it practical to keep having referendum over every part of negotiations. For one, you would lose public interest, and two it would be confusing for most. It's very simple, in or out. To think Cameron gained meaningful concessions would be foolish; it is what it is. Moreover, the debate (if you can call it that) has been farcical. To me, it confirms what I've said for a long time, no one really knows the outcome, if we leave. And trying to get a balanced view is very difficult. Everyone has a vested interest, one way or the other.

There can be no question that a series of referendums or elections are not a simple as one that decides the final outcome. But simplicity is, as good as it might be, not always the way to go. The Swiss hold referendums on major questions of policy and do this quite often without the population losing interest. The French usually or at least often will have a run-off elections for their officials. Here, we are talking about something far more decisive for the future of the population and the common than usually the case in a mere election between candidates for President. If that confuses the citizens or they lose interest, then the community has a really sever problem and is really very sick.

 

[joG]

It's a vote on Britain's membership, not on what reforms the EU needs to effect.

It is both. That is why it is so ridiculous or dishonest, as the case might be, the way it is being handled. For the form of Constitution and that is, what it is about, is a main determinant is the path's further course.

 

[Andalublue]

It is both. That is why it is so ridiculous or dishonest, as the case might be, the way it is being handled. For the form of Constitution and that is, what it is about, is a main determinant is the path's further course.

No. It's about whether Britain remains on the path at all. If it decides 'yes' THEN you can discuss what changes are required. If the vote is 'no', then the UK has no further role in discussing the future of the EU.

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

the real question is; are britons able to decide for themselves? remember britons, you've never had a say on the EU.

 

[joG]

No. It's about whether Britain remains on the path at all. If it decides 'yes' THEN you can discuss what changes are required. If the vote is 'no', then the UK has no further role in discussing the future of the EU.

The future development path for the UK is dependent on this referendum no matter, if the vote goes yes or no. the amount of influence on the direction of the EU will differ, of course. But that does not make the referendum any better in its construction that I can see.

 

[Chagos]

A slim simple majority vote on a complex issue does not reflect a majority population preference either way.

So we're gonna revolutionize maths?

 

[PeteEU]

the real question is; are britons able to decide for themselves? remember britons, you've never had a say on the EU.

Yes they did.

 

[gunner]

The future development path for the UK is dependent on this referendum no matter, if the vote goes yes or no. the amount of influence on the direction of the EU will differ, of course. But that does not make the referendum any better in its construction that I can see.

YOU seem to be going round in circles. Making the referendum about what you want it to be about. In addition to what Andy said, and as I said previously, the Cameron package was pretty much pointless and a non-event. The whole of the EU are hardly going to listen to a single member (I use that word cautiously) and go against the intentions of the block (right or wrong). The referendum is about our continued participation, or not. It is not as complex as you wish it to be.

 

[calm]

It seems to me that Cameron is burning the candle at both ends ....

Leaked: Cameron ‘knee-deep in conspiracy’ with big business to keep Britain in EU
May 17, 2016
https://www.rt.com/uk/343337-cameron-leak-business-eu

Calm

 

[joG]

YOU seem to be going round in circles. Making the referendum about what you want it to be about. In addition to what Andy said, and as I said previously, the Cameron package was pretty much pointless and a non-event. The whole of the EU are hardly going to listen to a single member (I use that word cautiously) and go against the intentions of the block (right or wrong). The referendum is about our continued participation, or not. It is not as complex as you wish it to be.

As to the Cameron package, I would say that it was not totally but widely a non-event. If the UK remains in the EU it does have certain relevance. As to the amount of influence the UK can have from within, it could have been much greater in the past. The British government was, however, hesitant to utilize the instruments it had at its disposal to stop destructive developments. But it did opt out of the more horrendous one and had to use those instruments in these situations.

Going forward we seem to be seeing a continental shift away from more union. The Eastern EU members and some of the South no longer fully support deeper Union and are somewhat closer to the UK standpoint, which will allow blocking minorities and probably majorities that were not possible before. That will arguably increase the UK's influence.

 

[Chagos]

East and South are takers, not givers. They (especially the East, currently) may want less deeper union when it comes to giving but they're quite happy with "deeper" when it comes to "getting".

 

[Chagos]

Usually a change in a country's constitution requires a majority well above that for normal legislation. Often it is 2/3rds or even 3/4ers of the vote. There can at the same time be an additional requirement of a certain proportion of voters participating in order to make the vote or referendum valid. But this is all quite standard stuff. So, should a referendum that deals with the fundamental basis of the constitution and national sovereignty require less? After all, its outcome can potentially impact the lives of every citizen in very substantial ways.

UK does not have a constitution. What's more, national sovereignty is not under dispute here.

The whole thing is, as has been countlessly pointed out by now, about Britain either no longer following the EU path or staying (in whatever manner the future may deem for all).

 

[coldjoint]

UK does not have a constitution. What's more, national sovereignty is not under dispute here.

History of the Constitution of the United Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

The Constitution of the United Kingdom has evolved over a long period of time beginning in the predecessor states to the United Kingdom and continuing to the present day. The relative stability of the British polity over centuries, progressing without a revolution or regime change that lasted, has obviated the need to write a constitution from first principles, in contrast to many other countries. What Britain has instead is an accumulation of various statutes, judicial precedents, convention, treaties and other sources which collectively can be referred to as the British Constitution. It is thus more accurate to describe Britain’s constitution as an ‘uncodified’ constitution, rather than an ‘unwritten’ one.[1][2][3][4]

None the less a Constitution.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

UK does not have a constitution.

I have to agree with "coldjoint" even if I have to wash my mouth out afterwards...

Constitution - Glossary page - UK Parliament

What's more, national sovereignty is not under dispute here.

Agreed.