Re:The Case for a Confederal Europe
by Cupertino95014 on Friday June 24, 2022 @01:12AM
(#31858026)
Maybe they should have changed the rules before the game was played. Otherwise, it sounds like "hey, you plebs, you're going to keep voting until you get it right."
The UK has long had a dire need for constitutional reform–especially, some entrenched protections against the built-in possibility that any sufficiently large English majority can lord it over the other three constituent countries. Maybe they should have addressed that far more fundamental issue first, before holding a referendum on EU membership?
The failure to do so has likely hastened the UK's own demise – the experience of being outvoted on the Brexit gave a big boost to pro-independence sentiment in Scotland, and created a pragmatic case for Irish reunification which did not exist before (and stands a chance of eventually winning over even many who are culturally predisposed to oppose the idea.) While I think both outcomes are still many years away (especially in the case of Northern Ireland), it seems likely they'll be with us much earlier than they would have in a timeline in which the Brexit referendum had gone differently.
By a rather narrow margin – a less than 4% margin of victory, it could have very easily gone the other way.
And, the way the Brexit vote itself was structured leaves much to be desired. Many other countries have protections against constitutional-level issues being decided by a bare national majority. In spite of the UK's (unusual) lack of a codified national constitution, EU membership is undoubtedly a constitutional-level issue – indeed, many EU member states refer to their EU membership in their national constitutions.
In the US, a bare national majority is insufficient to amend the national constitution – instead, it requires 75% of states to approve (usually by vote of their state legislature, with state ratifying conventions as an alternative procedure which has only once been used). In Canada, most major constitutional amendments require approval by two-thirds of provincial legislatures representing at least 50% of Canada's population. Similarly, in Australia, to pass a constitutional amendment requires a referendum with a double majority – a majority nation-wide, and a majority in a majority of states.
If the UK had adopted an Australia-style approach to the Brexit referendum, "Leave" would have required not just a national majority, but also a majority in three out of the four constituent countries – a hurdle it failed to meet (England and Wales both voted to "Leave", but "Remain" won in Scotland and Northern Ireland). Given the lopsided-nature of the UK – England has over 80% of the population – you'd think protection for the smaller national constituents would be even more pressing than it is in Australia, Canada or the US – but that idea never seemed to occur to the Brexit referendum's architects.