I1L2T3 Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 I don't think that a minimum turnout clause solves anything. There's plenty of publicity and nobody can be unaware of the question, date, or voting process. Anybody who doesn't vote can be considered to have abstained. Why are the issues with a leave vote any different to those with a remain vote? The EU has nothing to say on the matter. Under the terms of the Lisbon treaty, the government can withdraw under it's own authority. It has a mandate to do so from the manifesto on which it was elected if that is the referendum result. This is therefore a matter between the UK people and their government. Hopefully that will become the new norm after we vote to leave. Indeed it works the other way too. If 25.x% of the electorate represents a majority stay vote then I would expect the outers to be mightily aggrieved. In fact nothing would really be settled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Indeed it works the other way too. If 25.x% of the electorate represents a majority stay vote then I would expect the outers to be mightily aggrieved. In fact nothing would really be settled. As an 'out'er I would accept that result. I would say that a close result either way, especially as you say on a low turnout, would be a good reason to being the matter to the people again in less than 41 years. It's interesting to consider the effect on UK politics of I suppose 4 general referendum outcomes. 1. A close result for leave 2. A close result for stay 3. A clear result for leave 4. A clear result for stay What would happen I wonder to the smaller parties UKIP and the Lib Dems who have a clear and emphatic position which almost defines them (especially UKIP), and to a lesser extent to the Conservatives and Labour. I would have thought that the effect on Labour would be minimal as the EU has never really been defining for them. Would any outcome destroy UKIP, or possibly seriously wound the Lib Dems? Would any outcome properly split the Conservatives? I would have thought that UKIP would survive (2) and perhaps wind up happily in the case of (1) or (3). (1) or (2) I would have thought would make a mess of the Conservatives. At least for a while. What of the Lib Dems in case (3)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 IMO there is a serious flaw in the terms of the referendum and that is the missing minimum turnout clause. Was there one in 75? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) Was there one in 75? I doubt it but for a decision of this magnitude surely we should ensure there is a genuine majority. It also fits with Tory policy in other ballots. Are we really saying that strike action can only ratified with a minimum turnout, but we could make a decision that changes the country for ever with 25.x% (or less) of the electorate being in favour? Really? Edited February 28, 2016 by I1L2T3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quik Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 Don't know anything about that but the issues with a 'leave' vote look pretty clear. Seriously, are we going to trigger article 50 with maybe only 25.x% of the electorate voting to leave? What politician is going to be brave enough to do that? Would the EU even accept that as the will of the electorate? IMO there is a serious flaw in the terms of the referendum and that is the missing minimum turnout clause. You mean you know you will lose and are now looking for reasons to reverse the decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 I doubt it but for a decision of this magnitude surely we should ensure there is a genuine majority. It also fits with Tory policy in other ballots. Are we really saying that strike action can only ratified with a minimum turnout, but we could make a decision that changes the country for ever with 25.x% (or less) of the electorate being in favour? Really? I don't think strike action rules are a good model for everything else. I don't want to get drawn off into a debate about strike rules. Either because strike action is legitimately a special case, or because Tories are somehow evil and hate unions, they're subject to different rules. In matters of political democracy minimum turnout is a terrible idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 I addressed the point pretty clearly, all I can do is vote on who I want to be in. That is how democracy works. Your point is superfluous to the extreme though, which is why I asked what YOU were going to do if Corbyn gets voted in? Throw pebbles? Start a civil war? You totally dodged the question. Far-right and nationalist parties are surging across Europe and the ongoing migrant crisis is only going to maintain this momentum. It may still be unlikely but it is none-the-less a possibility that these groups could gain enough support in the future to control the EU. In such a circumstance would you still be talking about 'that is how democracy works' if the EU ordered this country to intern Muslims who they considered a security threat? Would you still justify the ceding of powers to the EU, and the doing of it's bidding, for improved financial security? At what point does the principle that this country self-governs become something worth fighting for? Cowardly humans have throughout history used the 'just following orders' excuse to justify to both themselves and others their reason for collaborating instead of fighting against something that is wrong. Ceding power to the EU, to people from different cultures with different concerns and agendas, is both wrong and dangerous. As a matter of principle this country must only cede trade related powers to the EU and those who would surrender more in the face of the thinly veiled 'silver or lead' threat coming from the EU have no spine and no principles. I doubt it but for a decision of this magnitude surely we should ensure there is a genuine majority. It also fits with Tory policy in other ballots. Are we really saying that strike action can only ratified with a minimum turnout, but we could make a decision that changes the country for ever with 25.x% (or less) of the electorate being in favour? Really? 0% have ever voted to surrender non-trade related powers to the EU. The powers the EU now wield have been taken by stealth over a prolonged period of time because the politicians knew there was no change the British public would volunteer to give them up if asked at a referendum. If anything your argument needs to be flipped so that a minimum turnout and vote in favour is required to give up sovereignty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaati Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 The baiting and arguing can now cease. Posts have been removed as such. If this continues then you run the risk of being suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 You mean you know you will lose and are now looking for reasons to reverse the decision No I think the stay vote is going to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) No I think the stay vote is going to win. hope so however, regardless of what happens then i think something similar to what's happened with the scottish referendum will happen and whoever loses keeps dropping hints about wanting another one especially if the vote is close.... Edited February 28, 2016 by andyofborg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts