Europeans' opinions on UK's EU Referendum...

JJLehto wrote: rogerthat wrote: Atkingani wrote: Since it's not a choice of persons (politicians) where a simple majority is needed but instead a choice of government policy then a qualified majority should be needed IMO. At least 60% of the voters witha turnout of 70% minimum, maybe more. Sort of what I proposed too in the other thread on whether democracy works. Simple majority is not adequate to represent what the people at large want in this case.  Yeah, it does feel kinda weird that an action of this gravity, with such potential implications, can be decided by 52% of the population.  I get that's democracy but yeah does seem like maybe something this massive should be more than a simple majority vote.

How else would you do it? A minority? A panel of "experts"? A consensus of government? A tyranny? A measure of applause at gigs? By visiting the Sybil? By emptying your bollocks and seeing how far it flows after a damned good play?

Seriously, I really do wonder sometimes.

If a referendum is called, however stupidly, and this one was the most massive shot in the foot in modern British history, the only way you can measure it is by a majority of voters. Whether you like the result, or not.

lazland wrote: JJLehto wrote: rogerthat wrote: Atkingani wrote: Since it's not a choice of persons (politicians) where a simple majority is needed but instead a choice of government policy then a qualified majority should be needed IMO. At least 60% of the voters witha turnout of 70% minimum, maybe more. Sort of what I proposed too in the other thread on whether democracy works. Simple majority is not adequate to represent what the people at large want in this case.  Yeah, it does feel kinda weird that an action of this gravity, with such potential implications, can be decided by 52% of the population.  I get that's democracy but yeah does seem like maybe something this massive should be more than a simple majority vote.  How else would you do it? A minority? A panel of "experts"? A consensus of government? A tyranny? A measure of applause at gigs? By visiting the Sybil? By emptying your bollocks and seeing how far it flows after a damned good play? Seriously, I really do wonder sometimes. If a referendum is called, however stupidly, and this one was the most massive shot in the foot in modern British history, the only way you can measure it is by a majority of voters. Whether you like the result, or not.

You actually answered it yourself there by using the phrase majority of voters instead of majority of those who voted.

Because an alternative to a simple majority, (which Guigo, Matan and Brian used correctly to describe a majority as the option with the most votes), is an absolute majority which means a majority of all those eligible to vote and not just those who did vote but still has a 50% winning threshold. In this referendum that would mean the leave votes would only have achieved 37% of the votes and would have lost, however the remain votes would have been 35% but they would have won. This may seem unfair and undemocratic but actually it isn't, the consequence that all abstentions and spoilt ballots count in favour of the No vote should motivate those who support the referendum to vote on it. Amusingly the European Parliament requires an absolute majority of all MEPs whether they bother to vote or not. This is how wasters like Hannon and Fartrage could stay in the pub and still have their couldn't give a toss No votes counted.

Another rational and perfectly reasonable way would be to require a clear majority, which is termed a supermajority, such as a three-fifths majority or a two-thirds majority which means setting a value greater than 50% needed to win such as 60% or 66.667%. The results of the 1975 EC membership referendum and 2011 AV referendum would have been unaffected by setting a two-thirds requirement, but not this one. When electing a pope the catholic church uses a two-thirds supermajority.

The other is a way for spoilt ballots to be counted so they would actually mean something more than a token protest. There would have to be some qualification but in general they would count against both sides making it harder for either to achieve the 50% majority.

Edited by Dean - June 26 2016 at 01:11

The Dark Elf wrote: That is exactly my point, RT. In an Islamic state you run the risk of insulting, provoking, offending or infuriating Muslims with even the most simplest things we take for granted in secular societies. Take for instance how the Germans have had to brown-nose Erdogan while stepping all over German citizens' right to free speech (I guess free speech is not covered under EU bylaws). Yes, Erdogan, a portrait of a supposed "moderate" Muslim politician. That is, until he starts acting like Muhammad himself, proclaiming political fatwas against anyone printing a cartoon documenting his Turkish buffoonery. Radical Islamists in Turkey attacked a Radiohead party at a local record store and beat the sh*t out of people with pipes and bottles for simply wanting to hear the new album. No one was arrested. But when people protested the unwarranted violence in this alleged democratic country, they were met by police with water cannons. Erdogan's comments were telling in regards to the attack: "Using brute force to interfere is as wrong as organising an event spilling onto the street during Ramadan." Because, of course, it's more important that we don't offend the Muslim majority than it is assuring secularists have the freedom to live their lives without Islam. Or drink a beer on a holiday for a religion that is not your own.

Edited by rogerthat - June 25 2016 at 20:23

The "Racists" card and argument is being dished out in the press but amazingly, I voted Leave not out of bigotry or inferiority complex. I don't feel the EU has worked best for the UK but unfortunately over the past 40 years, we've had a breed of complacent politicians who didn't listen to the concerns of their own people and this is the result.
If the EU was truly democratic there wouldn't be a problem with countries being able to leave, or even expressing an interest to go. Isn't that democracy?
I hope other countries get the chance to say how they feel.
Not the poorly attended European elections but more referendums.
But then Ireland got asked three times so there could be another referendum.
While ignoring how countries in the EU have said "Fine! Piss off then!".

There's more I'd like to see. I'd like to see a referendum on the Monarchy next. I'll be voting "Rid" for that one too!
Such contempt for people recently! "UK Rednecks"! Not surprised or offended but it's not as simple as the explanations given. We can survive outside the EU, but we really need our MPs to bring their A game as the saying goes.

And if it was all about racism, then why the delight at Nigel Farage being shut out of the cross party negotiations? I spoke to others who voted Leave and they hate him more than the Tories, so it was clearly about something else that hasn't been reported.
And way to diminish the hard work of the British Labour movement by saying we got it all from the EU!

Dean wrote: lazland wrote: JJLehto wrote: rogerthat wrote: Atkingani wrote: Since it's not a choice of persons (politicians) where a simple majority is needed but instead a choice of government policy then a qualified majority should be needed IMO. At least 60% of the voters witha turnout of 70% minimum, maybe more. Sort of what I proposed too in the other thread on whether democracy works. Simple majority is not adequate to represent what the people at large want in this case.  Yeah, it does feel kinda weird that an action of this gravity, with such potential implications, can be decided by 52% of the population.  I get that's democracy but yeah does seem like maybe something this massive should be more than a simple majority vote.  How else would you do it? A minority? A panel of "experts"? A consensus of government? A tyranny? A measure of applause at gigs? By visiting the Sybil? By emptying your bollocks and seeing how far it flows after a damned good play? Seriously, I really do wonder sometimes. If a referendum is called, however stupidly, and this one was the most massive shot in the foot in modern British history, the only way you can measure it is by a majority of voters. Whether you like the result, or not. You actually answered it yourself there by using the phrase majority of voters instead of majority of those who voted. Because an alternative to a simple majority, (which Guigo, Matan and Brian used correctly to describe a majority as the option with the most votes), is an absolute majority which means a majority of all those eligible to vote and not just those who did vote but still has a 50% winning threshold. In this referendum that would mean the leave votes would only have achieved 37% of the votes and would have lost, however the remain votes would have been 35% but they would have won. This may seem unfair and undemocratic but actually it isn't, the consequence that all abstentions and spoilt ballots count in favour of the No vote should motivate those who support the referendum to vote on it. Amusingly the European Parliament requires an absolute majority of all MEPs whether they bother to vote or not. This is how wasters like Hannon and Fartrage could stay in the pub and still have their couldn't give a toss No votes counted. Another rational and perfectly reasonable way would be to require a clear majority, which is termed a supermajority, such as a three-fifths majority or a two-thirds majority which means setting a value greater than 50% needed to win such as 60% or 66.667%. The results of the 1975 EC membership referendum and 2011 AV referendum would have been unaffected by setting a two-thirds requirement, but not this one. When electing a pope the catholic church uses a two-thirds supermajority. The other is a way for spoilt ballots to be counted so they would actually mean something more than a token protest. There would have to be some qualification but in general they would count against both sides making it harder for either to achieve the 50% majority.

d

An absolute majority qualifying vote would only work, IMO, where you had a system of compulsory voting, which would have to be rigidly applied. Then you would have that utopia you describe, a true majority of everyone who has participated. Having a system whereby an option gets only 35% of those eligible to vote, but "wins" against an option which gets 38% of those eligible to vote strikes me as not being particularly democratic, and I would make the point that, from time immemorial, people have been able in this, and other, countries to abstain. This is a perfectly acceptable choice, and should, really, have a box to tick on the ballot paper.

I am also familiar with the "supermajority" concept, having participated in more card votes at civil service trade union conferences than was good for my physical and mental health. To get a change to the rules through at conference requires a two thirds majority in favour on a vote based upon the number of members you are representing at conference, thus, of course, skewing said vote in favour of those branches and delegates who have the largest number of members. Some cynical folk might argue that introducing a supermajority voting system for referenda would be a rather convenient way of keeping the status quo and resisting change. Such cynics would, of course, be right.

I will also resist commenting in detail on the delicious irony of a committed agnostic, and veteran of many threads discussing such issues on PA, using the Papal electoral system as an example to support his arguments here.

I know that there are a lot of people unhappy with the result, but a majority of those voting voted to come out, and I reckon most folk in this country would accept that this was a democratic mandate, even if they are unhappy with said mandate.

^^^

npjnpj wrote: I can't really imagine there to be any further European referendums held undert the same criteria as they were instated in the UK. If there are to be any, the respective governments will have to make damn sure that things go their way, i.e. the instatement of percentage clauses etc. The UK calamitiy just won't happen again in another country.

A better solution would be (a) for the national politicians to start listening to voters drawn to far right populists instead of pretending they are loony bats to be ignored, esp so because many of these feel left out by the forces of globalisation and (b) for the Eurozone to relax stiff fiscal stipulations.  If the Eurozone starts to perform better, that in itself will ease the pressure on low/working class citizens and keep the larger EU going.  Although they have done so, UK didn't have such great reasons to leave the EU as do some of the countries bearing the brunt of Euro austerity.  They can't even print their way out of trouble.  They have, unlike UK, truly given up their sovereignty and paid a heavy price for it.  This issue needs to be urgently addressed to stall the breakup of the Eurozone and eventually the EU.  I am not optimistic about that happening but maybe better sense will finally prevail.  The alternative is Mother Russia storming back into EU, well, not storming back but slithering in like a wily serpent.  Putin has probably been waiting for this all his life.

JJLehto wrote: I heard, any of our UK friends can confirm or deny, lots of "white working class people many of which have probably not seen a migrant worker" voted for leave, and seems there was both conservative and labor support.

npjnpj wrote: The populations' worries are mainly empoyment and job security, living standards, and the refugee problems and not the bailing out of banks left right and centre, as seems to be the EU's main priority. This may be true or not, but that is the general perception. The EU is run by accountants who are very aware of their powers and deem themselves almost invincible.