> I really wish they'd stop calling it a "clear majority". I'm not sure when 52-48 was ever such.
It's a majority though. If they wanted to have a higher threshold for the vote (say 60%) they should have done as much when writing the referendum.
It's a majority though. If they wanted to have a higher threshold for the vote (say 60%) they should have done as much when writing the referendum.
In a constitutional republic (such as Ireland for instance) a referendum clearly specifies the change to the constitution down to the wording and an open informed debate is had on what the consequences, and possibilities of those unforeseen etc.
There was nothing like this with "Leave". Article 50 as a the mechanism by which leave might be initiated was never even mentioned.
Even since the vote there has been all sorts of inferences based on opinion polls about what the "Leave" constituency desire and it has largely been interpreted as "keep the foreigners out" - and that is an interpretation that clearly has no constitutional footing.
Brexit was at best a plebiscite, dressed up as a referendum. There is a mandate for leaving the EU, but there is no prerogative at all for any of the specifics of how that happens nor has there been a robust discussion over what "Leave" even means.
It will be sad to see the UK go and it will be disruptive for many but if that is her will then so be it, but I wouldn't want it to happen before all that are involved get to have their say on what it means.
It makes for fascinating reading. It covers the data science angle of how the "Leave" campaign operated.
Basically yeah, they just figured out iteratively what a possible "Leave" constituency might want to hear and just fed it to them. Details shmetails.
By far the most illuminating piece I've read on the phenomenon and I think it goes some way towards explaining what's going on in the US right now ...
But that's all he is. Just words and bluster. Hillary like her or loath her has substance.
Firstly it was 'remain' with Cameron's new package of concessions, not remaining as-is, and it's not like the EU is a static entity.
I think I would have preferred a real in-out referendum, with the 'in' option being really diving in and embracing the whole project.
It would have been interesting to see a three-option ballot under runoff voting, but those are completely alien to the UK system.
For some reason we have to stick with these archaic systems that produce perverse results...
What I mean is, there was a whole sales pitch during the campaign about what it might mean (e.g. more money for the NHS) which we all found out subsequently to be tosh.
Now we have: "Free trade but not free travel" or something to that effect. Never was such detail ever discussed prior to the referendum.
But the question on the ballot was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" and the option "Leave the European Union" won. It is clear that that means invoking Article 50 and begin exit negotiations with the rest of the EU.