Why a Brexit is unlikely to happen even if the public votes for it

[ehrnst]

Perhaps a ray of hope?

Business Insider last week explained why the UK government doesn't have to pull the country out of the European Union even if the public votes for a so-called Brexit on Thursday.

That is because the result of the coming referendum on EU membership is not legally binding.

On Monday, Peter Catterall of the University of Westminster spoke with Business Insider to shed more light on why Brexiteers would inevitably be very disappointed by what would follow a Leave victory in the referendum.

"I think that most Leave voters expect to wake up on the 24th no longer in the EU if there is a Brexit vote," Catterall told Business Insider. "Well, they’re going to be in for a shock."

http://www.businessinsider.com/eu-referendum-interview-peter-catterall-on-eu-brexit-2016-6?r=UK&IR=T

[Kelvin Mace]

1. 52% of the nation voted for it

Care to imagine what happens to the political party that defies the will of 52% of the nation?

[avebury]

3. The GOP on a daily basis in the US and nothing ever seems to happen to them. nt

[Kelvin Mace]

13. Well, kinda

The congress has not overturned a national referendum.

Opinion polls don't count.

[W_HAMILTON]

24. lol n/t

[ehrnst]

53. Bingo. (nt)

[scscholar]

6. If people vote against their own interests, then their votes should be ignored

The role of government is to protect us.

[Kelvin Mace]

11. That's one way of looking at it

Others would view it as overruling democracy.

Mind you, I see both sides of the issue, which is why I said in earlier posts that no matter which way the vote went, strife would follow.

[snooper2]

18. The far left really do like their totalitarians

[w4rma]

57. That isn't a "left" position. (nt)

[AntiBank]

19. sorry to tell you that is not the role

It's to represent the collective will of the body politic as prismed through whatever lattice of legislative power and mechanistic levers that have been erected by that particular nation state.

[tritsofme]

25. Wow, what an incredibly scary example of authoritarian thinking. Is this guy for real?

What other situations call for the government to "correct" democratic "mistakes"?

People need a dictator to be protected from themselves? This guy can't be real, can he?

[scscholar]

30. It's not authoritarian!

It, for example, protects minorities against the tyranny of the majority.

[daleo]

32. Yes, but inclusion or exclusion from a trade agreement is a different matter

Minority versus majority interests are not intrinsic to a trade agreement. That's not to say that different elements of the population won't have different opinions on the matter.

[Renew Deal]

26. Careful with that

It can be used against you

[Press Virginia]

27. How do you know what their interests are?

[cherokeeprogressive]

28. The role of a government is to conform to the will of its citizens. Govt of, by, and for the people.

Fuck anything remotely resembling the type of country you envision.

[randome]

29. So the majority always gets its way?

[cherokeeprogressive]

31. I'm assuming you're arguing the point that a government should negate results it deems unacceptable.

Is that what you're arguing?

I said nothing about the majority. I stated an opinion that the role of a government is to conform to the will of its citizens.

[randome]

35. Unless you always abide by the majority, that will is subject to interpretation.

In this case, with the U.K.'s economy in a tailspin, I think what's best for them is to explain that the vote to secede was a mistake and the government should do what's best for its people.

[cherokeeprogressive]

40. Going back to the post I replied to... that poster thinks the government should decide what is in

the best interests of its citizens and negate their right to self-determination if the government itself disagrees with the outcome of the democratic process.

That's ass backward from what I believe the role of government should be.

[randome]

46. Okay, but they should never have put such a 'big picture' decision up for a vote in the first place.

And since Brexit is a long, drawn out process, they should make everyone aware of the consequences and then either put it up for another vote (in about 2 years time, which is how long this will take) or simply take the political hit and say, "We made a mistake. It's in our best interests to stay."

[cherokeeprogressive]

47. Best two out of three? If the next vote is STAY, have a rubber vote two years after that?

LOL I respect your opinion. Where we part ways is in believing the bigger the decision, the less weight the opinion of The Great Unwashed should matter.

[treestar]

37. within the rule of law

If the majority could decide everything, we would not have civil rights laws and the courts could not strike down laws that discriminate. The Jim Crow laws were the will of the majority.

[ehrnst]

71. Within the law - remember SCOTUS

The reason they are there is as a hedge against mob rule, and act as a balance to the majority. They don't answer to the majority.

Also, we have the Senate as a hedge against mob rule - the population of Rhode Island has just as much say as the population of California. Again - checks and balances.

[sendero]

33. Really?..

.... no /sarcasm/ tag? Are you serious?

[Ghost in the Machine]

62. "The role of government is to protect us." WRONG! Their role is to REPRESENT us and to be OUR VOICE

I don't even like calling them our "Leaders", because they're not. *They* are *OUR* Employees, and need to be reminded of that constantly.

Peace,

Ghost

[PersonNumber503602]

64. That line of thinking is at least part of why some support Brexit.

I'm not sure promoting such a sentiment is a good way to win people over.

[sarisataka]

65. Who would you like to determine

What people's own interests are thus being the person who decides which votes count and which don't? Will it be a single person or a central committee?

[ehrnst]

72. Sarcasm - Right? Lemme guess

You are unhappy about Superdelegates.

[Johonny]

15. It depends on the people that will be there next election

The vote to remain was highly split in favor of remaining under 50 years of age. If you care about the future of your party then possibly not pissing off the Genx on down vote forever might be seen as a good thing. Yes, the baby boomers of the UK push Brexit over the top and seem to be keeping conservatives in power, but for how long? What happens to political parties that alienate huge percentages of the population that is soon to be the majority of the voters?

[Kelvin Mace]

17. Yep, in ten years

a lot of these voters will be dead. The problem is the damage in the short/medium term. If Parliament refuses to vote to exit, new elections would be triggered, and that 52% would be around to punish the "traitors".

[ehrnst]

54. And most of the South in the 60s wanted Segregation.

And the Supreme Court as well as some really dedicated politicians overrode them because sometimes we have to deal with the public responding to mob mentality.

And Muslims would be driven out of some areas of this country by a majority if not for the 'elites' keeping an eye on civil rights.

[Kelvin Mace]

59. I certainly agree with you

But the balancing of democracy with the rights of the individual is a very delicate balancing act. "Democracy", as the saying goes, "is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner". The will of the majority must be weighed against the rights of the individual. The majority must be protected from the tyranny of the few, but the few must be protected from the tyranny of the many.

When the populace is nearly evenly divided on an issue, half the people will be unhappy about something put to a vote.

[ehrnst]

67. Even Florida requires 70% approval to change its Constitution.

Brexit is far, far more complex an issue, and has massive implications.

[Kelvin Mace]

68. No argument

I completely agree. But we both know that the bigots won't see it that way.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

69. Florida only requires 60% to amend its Constitution

and even that is relatively new (changed in 2006 from simple majority to 60%).

It was changed because of the number of amendments, some of them pretty stupid, being added. But even then, the state didn't go back an undo amendments that had already passed.

If the UK wants to change the threshold for future votes, fine. But this one is done.

[ehrnst]

70. Thank you for the correction.

I think that it was nuts for them to put something so huge and complicated up for referendum, especially as a simple majority.

[eppur_se_muova]

60. Actually, 52% of 72% voted for it.

Voter turnout was "only" 72%, so 52% is a minority of registered voters (~37%). Not sure what percentage of nation are registered voters ...

[Kelvin Mace]

61. Correct!

Which is why I always laugh when people wax rhapsodic about the Reagan "landslide". Reagan got 50.7% of the votes cast, which means he was voted for by only about 20% of the population, meaning 80% voted against him, or did not/could not vote.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

66. And ~35% is an even smaller minority of registered voters n/t

[Purveyor]

2. Cameron resigning baked the cake. They are out of the EU. eom

[TubbersUK]

9. I think so too

Come October, chances are the Tory leadership will be drawn from the Brexit camp.

Can't see why, having pulled out all the stops to get that far, they would then demur.

[NightWatcher]

21. Cameron can't pull a

[Bad Thoughts]

4. EU Parliament President is ready to show UK the door

He said that he and others are tired of being held hostage to British politics.

[justiceischeap]

7. Yep, I read they want an answer by this coming Tuesday. nt

[roamer65]

44. Tell them to go pound sand, IMHO.

The referendum is non-binding, so the UK can leave when it wants.

The Germans will finally have to negotiate in good faith.

[roamer65]

45. Juncker is piece of shit.

Undemocratic drunkard of the first order.

He can go fuck himself.

[truebrit71]

63. Can't say I blame him. You don't get to vote to leave the club and then drag your feet.

Voted to leave? Pick up your shit and get the fuck out...

If they wanted to negotiate better deals maybe they should have thought about that before voting to leave....

[BlueCaliDem]

5. Parliament must consider debate now that over 100k signed petition for 2nd referendum.

All is not over, yet. Those who voted to Leave now have regretted their vote and have serious worries after watching the pound drop to 31 year low.

The government will respond to calls for a second EU referendum next week after more than 100,000 people signed a petition.

Just hours after it was set up, the online petition has received enough backing to be considered for a debate in parliament.
Petition calling for a second EU referendum crashes because it’s so popular

That is despite the entire parliament.petition.uk website crashing regularly throughout the morning due to high demand.

It attracted immediate and vast support – mostly from Remain voters hoping to overturn the vote for Britain to leave the EU.

The government’s Petitions Committee will consider the protest at their next meeting, which falls on Tuesday June 28.

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/24/parliament-to-consider-debate-for-second-eu-referendum-as-100000-back-petition-5964769/#ixzz4CW74k8nG

[daleo]

34. In Canada, we call that a Neverendum

If you don't like the result, just petition for a new referendum until you get the result that you want.

If Britain does withdraw it won't be the end of anyone's world, though it will be a mild rebuke of global capitalism, as currently constituted. They can always ask to rejoin, in a decade or so, if the pull-out looks to be a bad mistake. It's a trade deal, not a pact unto the end of time.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

41. "Those who voted to Leave now have regretted their vote"

Says who? You?

[BlueCaliDem]

48. ...

Says them. Where have you been all day?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

55. I'm sure that some of them have

which is a far cry from all of them, which is what the previous poster implied.

[Shandris]

8. "We found a way to cheat democracy yet again! A RAY OF HOPE!"

"Shandris, why do you keep saying that there are far too many authoritarians in the """""liberal""""" party?"

I can't imagine.

[ehrnst]

14. Sometimes you don't put incredibly complex financial decisions up for a referendum

by a public that is now frantically googling "EU" AFTER they've voted to leave it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/24/the-british-are-frantically-googling-what-the-eu-is-hours-after-voting-to-leave-it/

I'm glad we have representative democratic government- which is a form of democracy, BTW, not the antithesis to it.

[Iliyah]

22. This. If the USA allowed popular votes re: equal rights for POC

back 50-60 years the outcome would have sucked more. Now POC are allowed to vote and the right wing is depressing that and getting away with it.

But again, this is their country, hopefully the down draft of it's economy will be contained there and not affect the USA too much.

[former9thward]

49. Yes, we just want the elites making the decisions.

The last time there was a referendum on this, 1975, people voted to stay. But that was ok, right? Because the vote came out how you liked it....

[ehrnst]

52. If by "elite" you mean knowledegable, yes.

We have a representative government, yes?

we want people who are intelligent and knowledgeable in positions of representation, yes?

Otherwise, why do we go through all this election stuff? If anyone can do it, why not a lottery? Why do we even care who is elected if having political knowledge and qualifications is 'elite.' Isn't that why Trump's supporters want him to lead?

I go to a physician when I want medical care. Does that make her "elite?"

I go to a financial advisor about my retirement account, because I want the expertise someone dedicated to making those kinds of decisions.

Yes, I let my representative know what I want, but I expect him to know what the hell he's doing and to do the job of making good decisions about budgets, infrastructure, and other things I don't have the time to come up to speed on.

The Supreme Court is "elite" and they don't answer to the public at all - if they did, we'd still have a segregated south, and abortion might still be illegal in many places because "elites" decided that mob rule shouldn't prevail. And yes, they've fucked up, but we have a balance of powers for a reason.

Muslims would be driven out of some areas of this country by a majority if not for the 'elites' keeping an eye on civil rights. As well as transgender people.

The "states rights" arguments all start with "the elites want to tell us what we can do." Well, the Constitution is there to protect us from the mob, when need be.

Hell, yes, I want the input of informed, dedicated 'elites' when running my country.

[former9thward]

58. U.S. Senators used to be appointed by the state legislatures.

That was because the writers of the Constitution wanted people that were knowledgeable in those positions. That was changed by the 17th amendment which provides for direct election of Senators. I suppose you oppose that amendment because you want people to be "knowledgeable". You must also support the electoral college since that is a mechanism put into the Constitution to oppose majority voting.

No thanks. I trust people, you don't.

[procon]

10. The US doesn't have the mechanism to put a national referendum on the ballot.

That's the prerogative of the states, and not all states even allow a process to have a referendum. The closest thing we have is Trump who has made policies of bigotry, fear, hate, anti-immigrant, racism, and isolationism, the cornerstones of his campaign.

[ehrnst]

16. Thank God. (nt)

[David__77]

38. I don't know that the constitution would allow the US to join a EU type org.

I'm not sure the issue of EU type organizations is relevant to the US- I'd like to know.

[Hoyt]

12. Don't think we've seen end to this. I do think EU will make changes to appease more folks.

And, that's probably the way it should be.

[roamer65]

42. They will get a deal from the EU and be back voting again in 1-2 years. N/t

[B2G]

20. Then why hold a vote in the first place??

I'm sure that would go over well...

[underpants]

23. Henry the VIIIth clauses. Interesting. Thanks.

Rec'd

[treestar]

36. They still might vote for it if their constituents did

Likely they will, as they are representatives and most of those want to be reelected.

[pansypoo53219]

39. at least cameron had to go.

[Rex]

43. Non-binding, they can just choose to stay in the EU.

[truebrit71]

50. Political suicide to ignore it.

But like the dog that finally catches up to the car, now they have to figure what's next...

[malaise]

51. I suspect this is exactly what will happen

nothing