Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

FUCK YES LET'S LEAVE GET HYPE YEY

Casual yes, let's leave and get independence done with

Meh, probably just scribble all over my vote ballot to spite tryhards

Casual no, let's remain and get integration done with

FUCK NO LET'S REMAIN GET CALM YEY

[Harry Baldman]

Maybe they'll rebrand while the getting's good, a teamup of UKIPpers and Leaver Tories? Get a catchier name while they're at it. Concentrate, market and monopolize the sort of nationalism that got them the referendum. Seems like a reasonable idea given the approaching obsolescence of most of UKIP's platform and the great big split in the Tories, no?

[NJW2000]

... an unlikely plan. But it would be fun to watch them try it.

[Starver]

If there's a pre-exit election, they'll stick around for that.

And Farage did diversify his party, since taking over from Kilroy-Silk or whichever interim leader there might have been. It's how he got the party stronk!

[Playergamer]

Problem with arguing for a super-majority to decide the "will of the nation" is that isn't how it works. If 50% + 1 is enough to elect a government, and call that the will of the nation, then why isn't it enough for a referendum?

[Sheb]

The logic is to force a supermajority to have some stability. If 49% favor Brexit this weak, and 51% the next, what does the UK do? Hop in and out?

[Playergamer]

They count however many votes were cast when the voting was happening, and whichever side has more wins. If you didn't vote, or voted for the wrong thing - oops.

[Sheb]

So, you don't think some things are important enough to require a supermajority?

[Starver]

If 51% vote Party A and 49% vote Party B, then parliament isn't automatically going to go along with what the leader of Party A's government wants.

It's messier in parliament, because the government and the opposition(s) are theoretically voted in by the people to roughly press for (or against) what the people think they are for(/against), which doesn't always happen. And the agenda is set by the top table (or rather, the front bench) of the party, as much as they can get around their potentially rebellious back-benches) based upon the cabinet's recommendations, the cabinet being selected with as little compromise as practical to match the vision of the leader of the party.

But if a party leader wants something that enough population, MPs, party-MPs and even cabinet members 'advise' against, it gets dropped, and knife-edge decisions often aren't worth the risk, if it can be helped. Better to go away and rethink(/respin) the idea to get a better margin of majority support, lest rebellion/protest flare up either in tjis attempt or next time.

The opposite refwrendum split would have been as bad for Cameron, probably.  It really was an unwise thing to do if he ever had an inkling that he wouldn't get a comfortable margin. (But then, by the above process, he was likely in danger of beong out-rebelled for having promised the darn thing in the first place, expecting it to be a manifesto pledge that would have evapourated away in the 'inevitable' second coalition government. Sometimes you bluff your hand like a pro and you still get out-dealt!)

[Neonivek]

Dear goodness... UK either leave the UE or don't.

[Leafsnail]

Problem with arguing for a super-majority to decide the "will of the nation" is that isn't how it works. If 50% + 1 is enough to elect a government, and call that the will of the nation, then why isn't it enough for a referendum?

Firstly, that's not how our elections work at all. Secondly a government only lasts 5 years while this decision will last forever.

If, say, the First Amendment was overturned due to a 52-48 referendum would you be happy about that and accept the result?

[Starver]

If, say, the First Amendment was overturned due to a 52-48 referendum would you be happy about that and accept the result?

Well, you might not be able to argue against it... 

[Sergarr]

EU has issued an ultimatum for UK government to invoke article 50 immediately.

[Sheb]

Not really, it's a non-binding resolution by the European Parliament. It's not binding or anything, and, as I 've said earlier, this is above the institutions' pay grade, it'll be a member state decision.

[LoSboccacc]

EU has issued an ultimatum for UK government to invoke article 50 immediately.

that's an invite, quite not the same.

[TD1]

Problem with arguing for a super-majority to decide the "will of the nation" is that isn't how it works. If 50% + 1 is enough to elect a government, and call that the will of the nation, then why isn't it enough for a referendum?

Firstly, that's not how our elections work at all. Secondly a government only lasts 5 years while this decision will last forever.

If, say, the First Amendment was overturned due to a 52-48 referendum would you be happy about that and accept the result?

And if we voted to Remain at 52-48, would you be happy about that and accept the result? Or listen to calls for another referendum?