Voter turnout is mostly around 60%, often less. A 50% of eligible voters bar would only be reached if the voters supported something with over 80%, at least.
Even landslide votes don't go that hard.
Your policy would result in the government making no "consequential decision[s]" ever again.
The requirement for a supermajority in significant changes to the social or political circumstance isn’t something I’ve just made up on the spot; it is something already in use by western democracies across the world.
As an example, Australia, Canada and India - all Commonwealth nations - use some form of supermajority voting in relation to potential constitutional changes.
Such a consequential decision shouldn’t have been made by less than 50% of the actual population.
You didnt suggest a supermajority of votes, you talked about counting the "actual population", which I assume to mean the population of eligible voters, because including people who can't vote would be insane.
50% of eligible voters don't even vote half the time, including non-voters in any kind of referendum then needing a supermajority on top of that is a bar that cannot be reached.
What part of "I’d have been happier with something approaching a 2/3 majority" doesn't mean 66%.
What part of "Such a consequential decision shouldn’t have been made by less than 50% of the actual population." doesn't mean 50% of the entire nation?
Even if brexit was on the losing side of the 50/50 - steps should still have been taken to distance from the EU
People online pretending Brexit is because of 2% extra in the vote count is stupid.
If you have that many people who believe we should split, that should be respected in some way or another - and most people who think of some fantasy timeline where brexit got 49% would go absolutely apeshit if they heard a referendum on their favourite policy was completely ignored because of similar circumstance.
That just sounds like you want to tweak the rules to achieve a certain result.
Any change to the rules should apply to a referendum on rejoining. Still want 2/3rds?
That just sounds like you want to tweak the rules to achieve a certain result.
I maintain my position that such significant changes to our society or political realities should require a supermajority, as is the case in many other western democracies.
Any change to the rules should apply to a referendum on rejoining. Still want 2/3rds?
Yes - I wouldn’t want to rejoin the European Union unless the public is willing to commit to it wholeheartedly, otherwise there will be another Brexit fiasco a decade or so later.
How do you feel about every single treaty since joining the EEC in 1975 was ratified without a referendum in the UK? Each of those treaties caused "significant changes to our society".
Should all new EU treaties require every country to hold a referendum with a 2/3rds majority requirement?
I didn't say legislation, I said treaty. Single European Act (1986), The Maastrict Treaty (1992), The Lisbon Treaty (2007) etc.. all of which had significant impact on our society. Should we have had referendums on those and should they have had a 2/3rds majority?
A reminder we were promised a referendum on what was the Lisbon Treaty which they shitcanned once they realised it would fail. Then signed the Treaty anyway…..that didn’t end up backfiring at all did it now..?
I know. I personally think Brexit was caused by a previous lack of democracy. Had we had referendums on every single treaty since joining the EEC, the EU would likely be totally different to the one we have today and we wouldn't have wanted to leave it.
I know what you said - all of those treaties are upheld by legislation.
Should they have been subject to a referendum? Maybe, maybe not, opinions will differ.
It’s worth nothing that our own elected officials agreed to, I suppose, comply with these pieces of legislation; they were not imposed unilaterally by the European Union.
I find it hard to understand how you can want a 2/3rds majority referendum to leave the EU but only a 'maybe, maybe not' to create/join it in the first place. Both directions should be equal otherwise you are just favoring the side you prefer.
If the EU were to come out with a whole new treaty tomorrow that significantly changed society, eg.. fiscal union, allowing the EU to issue bonds thus putting members in debt etc.., or perhaps a treaty establishing an EU military, would you want referendums in each member country with a 2/3rds majority requirement?
Both directions should be equal otherwise you are just favoring the side you prefer.
Frankly, I haven’t put a great deal of thought into it; I don’t have a particularly strong opinion on the matter. The fact is, a referendum to leave the European Union (or, indeed, to join it) is far more significant in my eyes than one which changes certain elements of that union - at least, as far as we have seen historically.
I think most re-join advocates (myself included) fully want a 2/3rds or similar threshold for any referendum to re-join.
We know how fucked up it feels to have your life and society desecrated, what it means to be a citizen fundamentally changed against our consent, and how difficult it is to accept when its determined by a thin margin.
With that way of thinking, you should also be very angry that 'what it means to be a citizen fundamentally changed against our consent' when every single treaty was entered into without a referendum.
The only say that the UK public had was in 1975 when a referendum was held to join the EEC. Since then, we have had 5 treaties without a referendum.
what it means to be a citizen fundamentally changed against our consent
This was intended as a personal expression of pain. I was an EU citizen my whole life until it was taken away from me, leaving only UK citizenship. It fucking hurts.
That just sounds like you want to tweak the rules to achieve a certain result.
That's what the Brexit crowd/establishment did, as the whole referendum was, get this, advisory; but that was quickly forgotten to appease a small group of wealthy people to the detriment of most.
For huge descicions that are deemed a referendum, a 66% result from voters should need to be achieved. Anything less, it's back to the voting booth to see which view is held more strongly.
19
u/TrafficWeasel United Kingdom May 14 '25
I’d have been happier with something approaching a 2/3 majority, rather than just barely over 50%.
Such a consequential decision shouldn’t have been made by less than 50% of the actual population.