It's a majority though. If they wanted to have a higher threshold for the vote (say 60%) they should have done as much when writing the referendum.

In a constitutional republic (such as Ireland for instance) a referendum clearly specifies the change to the constitution down to the wording and an open informed debate is had on what the consequences, and possibilities of those unforeseen etc.

There was nothing like this with "Leave". Article 50 as a the mechanism by which leave might be initiated was never even mentioned.

Even since the vote there has been all sorts of inferences based on opinion polls about what the "Leave" constituency desire and it has largely been interpreted as "keep the foreigners out" - and that is an interpretation that clearly has no constitutional footing.

Brexit was at best a plebiscite, dressed up as a referendum. There is a mandate for leaving the EU, but there is no prerogative at all for any of the specifics of how that happens nor has there been a robust discussion over what "Leave" even means.

It will be sad to see the UK go and it will be disruptive for many but if that is her will then so be it, but I wouldn't want it to happen before all that are involved get to have their say on what it means.

It makes for fascinating reading. It covers the data science angle of how the "Leave" campaign operated.

Basically yeah, they just figured out iteratively what a possible "Leave" constituency might want to hear and just fed it to them. Details shmetails.

By far the most illuminating piece I've read on the phenomenon and I think it goes some way towards explaining what's going on in the US right now ...

But that's all he is. Just words and bluster. Hillary like her or loath her has substance.

Firstly it was 'remain' with Cameron's new package of concessions, not remaining as-is, and it's not like the EU is a static entity.

I think I would have preferred a real in-out referendum, with the 'in' option being really diving in and embracing the whole project.

It would have been interesting to see a three-option ballot under runoff voting, but those are completely alien to the UK system.

For some reason we have to stick with these archaic systems that produce perverse results...

But the question on the ballot was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" and the option "Leave the European Union" won. It is clear that that means invoking Article 50 and begin exit negotiations with the rest of the EU.

What I mean is, there was a whole sales pitch during the campaign about what it might mean (e.g. more money for the NHS) which we all found out subsequently to be tosh.

Now we have: "Free trade but not free travel" or something to that effect. Never was such detail ever discussed prior to the referendum.

The whole Brexit saga makes me think more than ever that voting on issues of such national importance (including general elections) should be made mandatory.

[1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/how-did-turnout-a...

Regardless, I think this entire line of reasoning makes no sense. You could dismiss pretty much any election by multiplying the "yes" votes with voter turnout to get less than 50%.

That's just how democracies work, if you don't care enough to vote you don't get a say, that doesn't mean the opinions of people who do turn up should be given less weight.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Commun...

Not in Australia. Here we have compulsory voting, and referendums have to have a double majority in order to pass (so there's no question about whether the majority of the people actually wanted the change).

So multiplying by voter turnout would not meaningfully change the results (voter turnout is >95%). Maybe more countries should adopt mandatory voting...

Couldn't you just do the exact same thing with "valid votes" and say the same thing that the parent has said?

[0] - http://www.techly.com.au/2016/06/30/australia-votes-whats-do...

Yes, donkey voting is a problem as well. But there's a stigma around it as well (as that article shows). Invalid voting on the other hand doesn't have a stigma around it.

> Couldn't you just do the exact same thing with "valid votes" and say the same thing that the parent has said?

Maybe. But if someone makes the decision to tick random boxes rather than write "fuck you" then it's clear that they've made a decision to make a vote. It's a grey area, and I despise the issue of donkey voting, but you can't deny that the person has "had their say".

However, the number of invalid votes is counted though. And even considering invalid votes, the percentage of valid votes is better than most countries which don't have mandatory voting. Not to mention that invalid voting is known to be a method of abstaining from voting. I don't know what the stats are for donkey voting, but I doubt that a large enough portion of people do it for it to classify as that large of an issue.

We have many different ways of voting, so it's designed to be as easy as possible for people to vote (in contrast to what I've heard from Americans). The fines are not that bad for first-time offenders but they're large enough that it discourages people from not voting (the fine gets larger for subsequent offenders).

The rules for voting in elections and referendums are also the same (so the same fines apply).

Our democracy is a parliamentary democracy in which Parliament is supreme. We elect representatives so that they can make the decisions for us.

Any referendum is really just advisory.

Support for the EU is deeply rooted in a belief that people can't/shouldn't rule themselves: they need to delegate 'complex matters' to elite experts who, of course, only have the people's best interests at heart. The sudden belief that the referendum was only a fancy opinion poll entirely fits with this narrative.

Of course I believe that. Everyone who isn't a rabid libertarian or anarchist believes that, whichever side of political spectrum they come from. I imagine you believe it too to some degree. In representative democracies we don't rule ourselves, we choose the people who will rule us, which isn't the same thing at all.

There's a lot of valid arguments to be had around the process of choosing, the institutions, and what power those chosen should have, but no serious person believes that the best solution for a species that lives in societies is for every member to rule themselves in every particular.

Direct democracy has its place, but that place isn't the UK, which is a parliamentary democracy. It's an arrogation of parliament's responsibility to make decisions based on referenda.

You don't have to be a rabid libertarian or anarchist to think that Direct Democracy has something to offer.

I'm saying that dismissing a popular vote on the basis of voter turnout doesn't make sense. E.g. only 66.4%[1] voted in the last UK general election. Would anyone argue that the entire government of the UK is illegitimate on that basis?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_electio...

Not really, no. Especially if it's not clear there's an option to say "idk". Say you care very much but don't know what's best? Does your vote not matter, now? If so, doesn't that make the election wrong? But how do you express that?

There may be an answer to this deep inside some legislature chapter XVI section 16 paragraph b, but if people don't know, does that matter?

Anyway, not saying that was the case for brexit. But "That's just how X works" is typically not the strongest argument. There are a hundred ways to implement a democracy, and they all have their own flaws.

Yes, your vote doesn't matter in that case, because you have no information to convey to the system: you have no preference. Only votes which are conveying a preference about how the situation should be handled are useful. There's no reason to distinguish between "I care, but don't have anything to say about the topic" and "I don't care" if you're not even willing to vote based on which candidate talks about the issues you care about, at least as far as elections go.

Write a letter or something.

Ed: In a slightly less snarky sense, your vote really doesn't matter at that point. The point you should participate in the process, if you feel candidates aren't addressing your issues, is way before that. It just requires actual amounts of time and effort to shift platforms, though, and participation beyond checking a box every year/few years.

There is: you don't go to vote.

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

Parliamentary is only British and commonwealth citizens.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registr...

"Citizens of EU countries other than the UK, the Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta cannot vote in UK Parliamentary general elections, but can vote at local government elections, Scottish Parliamentary elections if they are registered in Scotland, National Assembly for Wales elections if they are registered in Wales and Greater London Authority elections if they are registered in London. They can also vote at European Parliamentary elections if they fill in a form stating that they wish to vote in the UK and not in their home country"

Bonus points to people who can give a rational non-imperialist argument as to why Ireland, Cyprus and Malta nationals get that privilege.

Well . . . the reason is pretty much imperialist in nature. In recent history, citizens of those countries (along with citizens of commonwealth countries) were unequivocally citizens of the United Kingdom. When the countries became independent, the UK government chose not to take away those erstwhile citizens' right to vote.

That's not a non-imperialist argument, but it is the reason.

In any case though, if people don't want to show up, then why force them? I'd put the 'blame' on the campaigners for not underlining the importance to get out to vote to constituents.

For instance you say only 37.5% of them voted to leave. That means you'd have to find fewer than 12.5% of the 27.8% who'd agree with them, basically 45% of the non-voters.

So you need some sort of explanation of why a selection of the population, which is a lot of people, came out 52-48, while the non-voters would have come out 45-55.

Without such an explanation, you'd have to think the law of large numbers would suggest that people who didn't vote were pretty much the same as the ones who did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule#Limitations

typically we practice more complex implementations of democracy and as a rule we use majority rule for things like social questions as opposed to key strategic and economic ones.

Or do you subscribe to the point of view that we should only have had a single general election and abide by that result for all time?

If we weren't asked whether we wanted to join a post-Lisbon Treaty EU, and once we were in it, we actively said we don't want it, why should we remain in it?

General election results must also be respected, but they revolve around a number of issues, so are not a good indicator of voters' opinion of membership of the EU.

Besides, the Conservatives were elected into government with a manifesto promising an in-out referendum. The government has delivered on that promise and is carrying out the will of the people, as decided in that referendum.

It is being respected. This might be news to you, but we don't live in a fascist dictatorship where dissent is forbidden.

So, in your view, not a single thing any government has done (with the exception of joining the Common Market) has been agreed to by the population. Interesting.

We did agree to be in the EU.

In any case, I trust you'll never vote again or protest against any voting outcomes that you disagree with as you seem to think that once a vote has been held, the outcome can never be disagreed with.

I don't expect everyone to be happy about the outcome of votes, but I do expect outcomes to be respected.

I'm not opposed to decisions being overturned, but I don't think it's right to re-run a vote right after it has been carried out. We haven't even left the EU yet. At some point after we've left the EU, perhaps there will be grounds to take another look at membership of the EU. But not straight away.

I want as many people as possible to participate in elections and referendums (even if I disagree with them), because I want everyone's voice to be heard. That's what it means to live in a democracy. And so I certainly intend to continue voting.

The number of people who claimed to wish they could change their vote after the result was surprising. How many referendums do we need before people decide they've voted "properly"?

Maybe that's the reasons why direct democracy by means of referendums is [considered to be] not always a good idea.

You seem to be trying a reductio ad absurdum argument here and failing.

The UK joined the EEC in 1973, without a referendum but based on an act of Parliament. In 1975 they held an explicitly non-binding referendum that supported staying in the EEC. In other words, that referendum voted to maintain the status quo. You can "disregard" it if you wish, but that would also just mean maintaining the status quo.

The UK has never held a binding referendum on EEC/EU membership. According to the UK's crufty "constitution", this means Parliament gets to decide. If Parliament does nothing, the UK remains in the EU.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

How right he was, although perhaps not quite in the way he meant.

I'm not even saying Britain should leave or stay, the whole methodology is wrong here. With close calls this is equivalent to flipping a coin, and only because it's a close call we accept the given outcome. Or in this case, many don't because they didn't think it'd come to this, but that's beside the point.

And yet I believe that words to that effect have been used in parliament.

Personally I don't think it "disrespects" the original vote, or the democratic process, where margins are absolutely razor-thin to feel an "are you sure?" followup is warranted. 70/30 Leave? Sure: a clear consensus, can't really argue. 52/48? Different matter entirely.

[] its been nearly 40 years since I read it

The rules for the referendum have been set by the government therefore it has committed to follow these rules regardless of outcome. And the outcome has been clear for anyone who understands basic arithmetic.

This whole debate about how to best screw the voters reminds me of Stalin's attitude towards democratic elections.

The right wing in Europe is calling the EU the EUSSR for a very good reason!

The Leave supporters are mostly over 50, have no coherent organization, and no history of street protests. All they're going to do is write angry comments on Daily Mail articles and vote in elections. They're not going to get hold of semtex and Armalites and start an insurgency.

Referendums are usually a mandate to the parliament to implement something.If the referendum idea turns out to be impossible (like eating and having your cake) then the parliament will dismiss or water down this mandate.

And its the government itself that initiated this on its terms so it should follow through on it. Not a fringe party but the ruling government parties.

I never did say this. I did say keeping the promises of the Leave campaigners is impossible.

> the government itself that initiated this on its terms.

The terms were that this referendum is not binding.

There's nothing impossible about jumping off a cliff either, it's just inadvisable.

But of course, and more to the point of what the grandparent post was saying, if the promise was that you will happily land on a soft bed of £350 million in delicately crumpled £10 notes, then meeting that promise may be impossible.

Yes, they could choose to leave the party. Even if they don't feel any duty to said party or to the constituents they're representing (who, realistically, voted on party lines, despite nominally voting for an individual representative), that still means leaving their whole career behind. I would be extremely surprised if we saw more than a handful of MPs do it.

The vast majority of the British voters do not like the EU. Most voted out and of those who voted remain, about half were motivated by simple fear of economic consequences like higher prices rather than any actual support for the project. Given that the EU wants the UK out ASAP without any kind of concessions at all, the people who want a "soft brexit" (whatever that means) are likely to be disappointed as such an option will not be on the table at all.

If MPs attempt to ignore or roll back the referendum in the face of an EU that's already committed to screwing the UK, Farage will return to UKIP and UKIP will absolutely slaughter the other parties. It'll still happen, it'll just take longer.

Although your comment is clearly articulated, and concludes with a very real and accurate statement, I feel I must redress the opening of your second paragraph.

If the vast majority of 'voters' did not like the EU, and 'most voted out' then the result would have been the same, but with much larger majority. This was not the case. The economic fallout of Brexit has yet to be experienced as it will not really kick in until after the UK leaves the EU. The fallout size also depends on the 'deal' (if any) the UK gets when it leaves. Merkel has been very clear that there is no deal on the table and there never will be. Whether the threat of higher prices were a scare tactic or not, many remainers simply did not want a financial hit on their wallet, which is totally understandable. Meanwhile, a large swathe of Leavers simply voted that way because Farage told them it was the only way to keep the migrants out.

At the end of the day, both sides were lied to, more or less, by parties whose political agendas and parliamentary jockyings were more important than the well-being of the country.

I'm not pro the EU in it's current form, but I do believe that the UK will be worse off as a non-member. This is my view, and I voted accordingly.

I also voted in an well-informed away, and I just wish the rest of the country had done so also. The outcome might have still been the same, but at least it would have been for the right reasons.

The vast majority of voters in any country do not like the government. That's not the benchmark for democracy.

> about half were motivated by simple fear of economic consequences like higher prices rather than any actual support for the project.

Economic consequences are just as real as "sovereignty" and similar concerns, if anything more so.

That's a wild overstatement - 52% of the people who voted (which was about 40% of the eligible voters) voted to leave the EU, sure, but that's not nearly "the vast majority of British voters" by a long margin.

> Farage will return to UKIP and UKIP will absolutely slaughter the other parties

I would put money on this never happening.

That is not "liking" the EU anymore than paying the Mafia to make them go away instead of fighting them makes you a fan of the Mafia. If the EU had committed before the referendum to striking a good trade deal with an out UK, continuing cooperation in areas where it was possible etc, then most likely leave would have won by around 80%. Which is why the EU didn't do that.

The polls are quite clear on this point. The EU has very little real support in Britain, defined as people who actually like the idea and want it to be extended further. It seems only about 20-25% of the population can be called real federalists. But basically all the EU leaders are.

The Queen becoming a dictator is completely different from the Parliament doing what it should do.

To keep it simple: This is a democracy, which means every citizen is giving away his/her power to a selected few.

The Parliament - the people you voted, more or less directly - has to act.

An ADVISORY referendum is going to be used as an ADVICE. The Parliament has to act - considering the people's will AND what makes sense for the country.

This mechanism is in place to protect you from direct democracy - which doesn't make sense because: A. People are easily manipulated - especially in a world where TV and internet make spreading information really easy B. People can choose to vote randomly, erratically C. People can have a different level of understanding on delicate matters - depending on their education and background

33.5 million voted 44.7 million could vote 64.1 million people total

Would you care to elaborate?

In fact they are acting as if the vote never happened and refusing to talk about anything at all until notification, thus doing their utmost to ensure the 2 years elapse with nothing done.

They're also briefing about "dirty brexit". Google it.

And fuel every little fascist's antieuropean campaign in other EU countries? The EU has to make an example about how leaving the Union is a bad idea, one that even the dumbest of voters understand - and that's exactly what they are going to do.

> In fact they are acting as if the vote never happened

Which is partly due to the fact that the British Referendum vote has no legal standing whatsoever. It is a "Suggestion".

> and refusing to talk about anything at all

Thus avoiding to making concessions and letting the UK test the waters before they actually decide to jump in.

> thus doing their utmost to ensure the 2 years elapse with nothing done

You do understand that the two years are a maximum length, and that the EU could simply decide not to Play, declaring negotiations over within seconds of May pulling the trigger, thus creating the hardest of Brexits with the UK without the EU and without any newly-set up trade agreements with third parties?

I absolutely understand that the EU can simply "refuse to play" and that's what I expect them to do. See my comments elsewhere. The EU is held together by fear and needs to make itself a sworn enemy of any country that wants to get out. It's an unstable strategy and it will eventually cause serious chaos, especially when the Euro falls apart. If the EU was willing to undergo massive reform and change itself, the transition could be orderly and yield minimal or even positive economic impact. It never will, so Europe is gonna have a very troubled next few decades.

I'm sorry, time to wake up from fantasyland of sovereignity. Decisions have consequences and it was rather obvious that the incentives become rather misaligned when UK decides to tell EU to go fuck itself.

UK did enough damage already, the latest and most glorious example is blocking finance reform so you could protect your criminal banker city (which, ironically will probably pack up and leave after brexit)

EU has no obligation to make special concessions, quite the contrary - it is obvious you cannot get a better deal than for example Norway, nor can you continue to benefit from common market without agreeing to it's most core terms

Sure, the Euro is in dire need of remaking, maybe explosive collapse of UK will be glorious enough to force some changes in that regard, so...thanks!

It's the EU that sees the world as a zero sum game: that for the EU to "win" out of this the UK must "lose". As Hollande has so memorably summed up.

It's something we have come to expect from the British: They get cranky once they find themselves on a Level playing field.

Look at topics like the death penalty where opinion polls often suggest that a clear majority of people would like the capital punishment but very few in parliament do.