Brexit Penny Dropping?

[The Voice of Reason]

19 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

How would that work then?  In the Brexit referendum neither side hit 60% so are you suggesting an ongoing referendum until one side reached the magical 60%?

It makes sense that on a vote for a monumental change that a supermajority should apply.  If that is not reached then the status quo remains.

Let's assume another referendum took place on rejoining the EU.  Don't you think that Steve Baker, Nigel Farage et al would prefer the need for a supermajority? 

Yes I’m sure they would but they wouldn’t ( nor should they) get the need for a supermajority.

Why does it “make sense”that on a vote for monumental change that a supermajority is needed, in the absence of which the status quo remains?
50 % + 1 makes much more sense

Who decides what is a “ monumental change” or the percentage of the supermajority required to overturn the status quo?

If leaving the EU was a monumental change then so would rejoining it. Would you suggest that a supermajority would be needed to rejoin?

[The Voice of Reason]

Most, I imagine would say that reinstating the death penalty comes under the heading of a “monumental change”

For those advocating a requirement for a supermajority to change the status quo, what sort of percentage would they set for a vote on such a change in the House of Commons should be? 60%, 65%,70%, or more?
 

A simple majority should suffice.

[John Wright]

31 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

My position is that the majority vote ( by whatever margin) should prevail.

Makes perfect sense and reason.

Except that’s not the meaning of what you wrote. Go re read.

It was an either or vote. Supermajorities are unsuited to either or votes.

[The Voice of Reason]

4 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Except that’s not the meaning of what you wrote. Go re read.

It was an either or vote. Supermajorities are unsuited to either or votes.

It’s exactly the meaning of what I wrote. You go re read.

“You can’t weight the odds in favour of one particular option” 

Is what I wrote 

We appear to agree. I don’t know what your issue is.

Edited October 27, 2023 by The Voice of Reason
Addition of second para

[John Wright]

3 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

By the same logic the Remain option should then have required a 60% “ supermajority “ for the UK to remain in the EU. 

 

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

It’s exactly the meaning of what I wrote. You go re read.

“You can’t weight the odds in favour of one particular option” 

Is what I wrote 

We appear to agree. I don’t know what your issue is.

What you originally wrote is impossible in an either or ( ie 2 option ) referendum.

Your second statement is contradictory of your first.

The referendum question was: 

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? The responses were:

1) Remain a member of the European Union

2) Leave the European Union

You can’t require a supermajority in that sort of referendum.

Steve Baker, and you, are wrong, when he or you postulate that leave, or remain should have required 60%.

The question was a change from the original question that was proposed by Parliament, which was:

‘Should the UK remain a member of the European Union?’ 

That is appropriate to require a supermajority. I’m in favour of supermajorities being required for major constitutional change, Brexit, Irish Union, leaving ECHR, etc
 

t

 

[Declan]

24 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Except that’s not the meaning of what you wrote. Go re read.

It was an either or vote. Supermajorities are unsuited to either or votes.

Are you completely incapable of reading nuance?

He meant "If you take the Supermajority idea to it's logical extent then ..." Reductio ad absurdum and all that. 

[woolley]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

How would that work then?  In the Brexit referendum neither side hit 60% so are you suggesting an ongoing referendum until one side reached the magical 60%?

It makes sense that on a vote for a monumental change that a supermajority should apply.  If that is not reached then the status quo remains.

Let's assume another referendum took place on rejoining the EU.  Don't you think that Steve Baker, Nigel Farage et al would prefer the need for a supermajority? 

There were none of those niceties in the first place to take us in. There wasn't a super majority. There wasn't even a majority. There was just Ted Heath and his starry eyed post-war belief in a European government. Of course a super majority is nonsense. If you think 52% was contentious, try 59.9% when 60% is required. That would go down a treat, wouldn't it?

[John Wright]

37 minutes ago, Declan said:

Are you completely incapable of reading nuance?

He meant "If you take the Supermajority idea to it's logical extent then ..." Reductio ad absurdum and all that. 

Except it’s not a nuance with the referendum question framed as either/or. Neither is it a reductio ad absurdum.

[The Voice of Reason]

52 minutes ago, John Wright said:

 

What you originally wrote is impossible in an either or ( ie 2 option ) referendum.

Your second statement is contradictory of your first.

The referendum question was: 

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? The responses were:

1) Remain a member of the European Union

2) Leave the European Union

You can’t require a supermajority in that sort of referendum.

Steve Baker, and you, are wrong, when he or you postulate that leave, or remain should require 60%.

Jeez, I wasn’t postulating anything of the sort. 
I was saying Steve Baker was wrong.

Maybe you just like arguing, even with people who share your point of view!

Edited October 27, 2023 by The Voice of Reason

[Declan]

13 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Except it’s not a nuance with the referendum question framed as either/or. Neither is it a reductio ad absurdum.

But he wasn't suggesting it, he was pointing out the absurdity of it. 

[John Wright]

13 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Jeez, I wasn’t postulating anything of the sort. 
I was saying Steve Baker was wrong.

Maybe you just like arguing, even with people who share your point of view!

Steve Baker is right. But it’s got to be a yes no question, not an either or.

[The Voice of Reason]

15 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Steve Baker is right. But it’s got to be a yes no question, not an either or.

 

Deleted.

Edited October 27, 2023 by The Voice of Reason

[manxman1980]

6 hours ago, woolley said:

There were none of those niceties in the first place to take us in. There wasn't a super majority. There wasn't even a majority. There was just Ted Heath and his starry eyed post-war belief in a European government. Of course a super majority is nonsense. If you think 52% was contentious, try 59.9% when 60% is required. That would go down a treat, wouldn't it?

Wasn't Britain known as the sick man of Europe back then?  Didn't it make sense to join the EEC?  Didn't France object? My point being that closer European cooperation benefited Britain greatly.  I am not going to argue about what the EU became and the pros and cons as that is just covering old ground.

To your final point...  any close result would be contentious.  50.1% is a majority.   It doesn't meet the 50+1 criteria nor is it a super majority.  

I actually think Australia has a good approach to referendums. 

 

https://www.naa.gov.au/learn/learning-resources/learning-resource-themes/government-and-democracy/constitution-and-referendums/referendums-and-changing-australias-constitution

[The Voice of Reason]

48 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

Wasn't Britain known as the sick man of Europe back then?  Didn't it make sense to join the EEC?  Didn't France object? My point being that closer European cooperation benefited Britain greatly.  I am not going to argue about what the EU became and the pros and cons as that is just covering old ground.

To your final point...  any close result would be contentious.  50.1% is a majority.   It doesn't meet the 50+1 criteria nor is it a super majority.  

I actually think Australia has a good approach to referendums. 

 

https://www.naa.gov.au/learn/learning-resources/learning-resource-themes/government-and-democracy/constitution-and-referendums/referendums-and-changing-australias-constitution

I’ve had a look at the link. It seems unnecessarily complicated.

Yes in the beginning there was benefits to joining the EEC. 

You don’t want to argue about what the EU became, but what it became led to the referendum in the first place and the Leave vote winning.

Any close result should not be contentious. As long as the contest/ referendum was conducted fairly the result should be accepted. What is there to be contentious about?

Don’t understand your argument about 50% +1 not meeting the 50.1% criteria. Both are a majority

[woolley]

2 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

 I am not going to argue about what the EU became and the pros and cons as that is just covering old ground.

That's good because neither am I. 😀