Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
There's a reason that most functional democracies have a constitution can only by changed by meeting a higher bar than simple majority: it's too important, too sensitive, and too irreversible to be decided without something closer to consensus. I would argue that that logic applies here.
In the general case I agree, but I think this vote is a bit different in that it was arguably about reverting another constitutional change - the ongoing abdication of many functions to an EU government with much less democratic accountability to the UK public - which was never legitimized by popular vote at all.
The last relevant UK referendum was the 1975 one on "European Communities membership", and at the time the EEC was pitched to voters as a purely economic arrangement, with none of the aspects of supranational government later introduced by Maastricht. That economic phrasing found just over two-thirds support, while polling conducted around the same time on political integration found (IIRC) just under one-third support.
As far as I know, every time European political integration has been put to a referendum, it's been rejected. The "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" was rejected by the French and Dutch populations in 2005; after that it was temporarily shelved then sneakily repackaged as the "Treaty of Lisbon" in 2008. Ireland held a referendum and rejected that too, but since that was the wrong answer it was forced to hold it again and voters were basically told to vote yes or else.
So the situation is not at all like the formation of something like the USA, where state populations explicitly agreed to political union. Political union is happening against the wishes of national populations. I don't think national leaders, even democratically elected ones, have the right to take power away from the populations they represent, any more than they have the right to say "hey, guess what, we're not going to have any more elections, we'll just stay in office forever".
There is obviously a strong disagreement on the matter. The humane thing to do would be to allow for further devolution, allowing Northern Ireland and Scotland to become independent and join the EU. London would be tricker, but Europe has had free cities before and could again. Or, perhaps Edinburgh could absorb the people that want to be part of the EU.
Any polity where issues split 50/50 (and America is currently in this situation in most cases) is going to be inherently tyrannical.
Secession is the humane way forward.
Going forward, the UK should look at the referendum as a very weak signal by the public. There will be no "revolution" and definitely not a violent one if the government looks at the effort and outcome of leaving the EU but ultimately decides to remain.
Suppose you have $1000 and say "I've spent most of my money on drugs and hookers". Many people feel that this means that not much money is left, and it would be kind of misleading if you've spent $501 on drugs and hookers and have a generous $499 left.
I think I remember vaguely that you can use ultrafilter logics for getting a better semantics for 'most'. Or, some sort of thresholds as a poor man's solution, I guess.
Staying in EU is a horrible idea as far as Britian is concerned. If they don't have to pay to corrupt government officials of poorer countries in the EU, it is already a win (for citizens of those countries and for Britain)... but I can see why the corrupt unelected EU officials don't want them (or anyone else for that matter) to leave.
Can you give any proof of those corruptions?
And, by the way, calling them unelected is a good way of showing a lack of knowledge about the EU
It also wasn't decided that the referendum was binding.
They can often be useful to consider, certainly, where they make sense.
> If that sort of semantic point makes that impossible to realize, then I don't really know what to tell you.
You could just recognize that sometimes the trick of reversing values doesn't result in a parallel (or even coherent) scenario to consider, because not every situation is symmetric in the way required for that to be a meaningful thing to consider.
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/remembering-what-ni...
"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it"
Obviously the side that wins isn't going to be in favour of having another go.
I mean look at the 2 main people who were driving the Leave campaign - they both resigned! When your leadership doesn't even want to see the Brexit through, you know you have a problem.
The public voted for them to Leave. So they left.
In another ten years this vote probably would have gone the other way.
In fact I'm really confused as to who such a complex geopolitical strategy decision was put in front of the citizenship in the first place. "What if they say yes?" Is the sort of question your government should be able to answer before asking the question. If they can't then maybe they shouldn't be making geopolitical strategy decisions either.
If you want a revolution, that's the one you need. Elect some grown ups instead. Then send us your all of the old leaders because they're still doing better job than mine.
Maybe, but you're assuming that the specific young people who are currently strongly pro-EU wouldn't change their minds as they got older.
I used to be strongly pro-EU (and still love the idea of it in many ways); it's only in the last decade that my opinion's shifted.
Note, I'm very much pro-EU and anti-Brexit. But I believe it would be madness to ignore the referendum.
The most pragmatic solution would be one that let's everybody keep their face. Find a solution that de facto leaves the status quo unchanged, but de jure let's Britain leave. Maybe formalize the special statuses Switzerland and Norway have, and give Britain an associate status. Or let Britain leave and change the statutes to allow England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland to become individual members. Or or or... I'll leave it to the EU bureaucrats to figure out.
edit: Most, as Johnson remains as Foreign Secretary.
I should note that following this has been my first real exposure to some of the finer points of British politics.
The Brexit was a piece of political propaganda, sold as something easy and hugely beneficial. When it becomes clear that the promises will not come to fruition, few will want to pay an even greater price. The Brexit leaders have all quit their jobs, there's no more leadership pushing this forward.
The vote is a reflection of discontent but it has no political articulation whatsoever. No plan. No actual idea on how to run a successful government that can ameliorate the issues at hand.
Votes of discontent tend to generate a lot of trouble on the short term, but give a little time and we're back to business as usual because, hey, it turns out actually governing is a hell of a lot more complicated than complaining about things and it turns out that bureaucrats who have been at it for a few decades are actually not the dimwits that are portrayed in the media.
I have very little sympathy for the established political parties, but it's very clear that there is very little in the way of actual plans and solutions outside of the status quo either.
Heck my impression is that this only became an issue more because of a strange interplay of Tory outliers with with a very small but loud group of brexiteers and UKIP politicians who preferred to misinform and pander to a voting bloc rather than having to deal with real, difficult problems.