EU Referendum - in or out?

[John McKenna]

Starting to think that the consolation of a Brexit vote is that it will finally expose BJ and Gove for the clueless chancers that they are.

Yes, Matt.

They're "clueless chancers", right enough, like a couple of Othellos they are up against a malevolent misleading horde of a thousand Iagos.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Fun Boy Three, commenting many years ago about the possibility of Brexit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRNYqsMIbg0

[John McKenna]

Junkers lands & Baron von Richter versus Sir David -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dUv5FcyNM0

This June it is not "the few" who will decide the outcome, it is the many.

Do your bit by getting out and voting.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Awful and tragic news about the MP Jo Cox who died after being attacked this afternoon:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36550304

"It has been announced the Vote Leave and Remain have suspended campaigning in the EU referendum in light of the attack."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-36553442

[Matt Mackenzie]

RIP, Jo - murdered by mindless unreasoning hate.

I leave others to judge whether that it is any way connected with the more general climate recently......

[Mick Norris]

Probably yes

RIP

It is the husband and children that I feel for, much worse than what we went through

[MartinCarpenter]

Horribly sad.

On a different topic - is anyone else a little bit surprised that this - and the Scottish independence referendum come to it - have been run as simple majority decisions?

Not simple bits of legislation/treaties etc you can amend/roll back later these. Potentially enormously committal decisions, which won't be able to be undone for at least 25 (more like 50, if ever) years. Feels like the collective should be very sure that this is what it wants to be doing before triggering them.

[NickFaulks]

Feels like the collective should be very sure that this is what it wants to be doing before triggering them.

Nobody bothered about that when we went in.

[MartinCarpenter]

Well then, that was odd too to be honest! Maybe its because we're so unused to holding referenda but it really should be something like 60/40 to make such huge changes on behalf of multiple generations to come.

Think chunks of the rest of the world work like this?

[Craig Pritchett]

Government by referendums can indeed seem odd!

Say, in a year or two, Scotland has a second referendum in which results to go independent/remain in UK are simply reversed. Isn't that a score draw?

Might not happen. But the betting is very highly on a large majority against Brexit in Scotland. So if England effectively votes Scotland 'out', what then? There will at least be considerable disgruntlement!

Gets curiouser, as the SNP hope that that doesn't happen, as they don't really believe they have a dependable majority for independence (at least for now).

Joys of (opportunistic?) democracy in action. Interesting times!

[Alex Holowczak]

On a different topic - is anyone else a little bit surprised that this - and the Scottish independence referendum come to it - have been run as simple majority decisions?

No, if anything, I'm more surprised that there are things that seem to require a 2/3 or 3/4 majority.

For example, the Muirfield vote on allowing women to be members didn't make 2/3 majority, but did make a simple majority. A rulechange in the Warwickshire Cricket League failed this season because the result was 66 - 34, so it didn't meet the required 2/3 majority.

To me, the 2/3 majority being needed makes no sense at all.

[Michael Flatt]

To me, the 2/3 majority being needed makes no sense at all.

When a decision is made regarding something that represents a major change and is difficult or impossible to reverse a simple majority may not be sufficient to represent a concensus.

Finalizing a Decision
The level of agreement necessary to finalize a decision is known as a decision rule. The range of possible decision rules varies within the following range:

Unanimous agreement
Unanimity minus one vote
Unanimity minus two votes
Super majority thresholds (90%, 80%, 75%, two-thirds, and 60% are common).
Simple majority
Executive committee decides
Person-in-charge decides

Some groups require unanimous consent (unanimity) to approve group decisions. If any participant objects, he can block consensus according to the guidelines described below. These groups use the term consensus to denote both the discussion process and the decision rule. Other groups use a consensus process to generate as much agreement as possible, but allow decisions to be finalized with a decision rule that does not require unanimity.

[1] Consensus Decision-Making: http://consensusdecisionmaking.org/Arti ... aking.html

[Matt Mackenzie]

Two thirds is too high IMO, but a "threshold" of say 55% for major referendum decisions may not be unreasonable.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Some systems set the bar as a percentage of the eligible electorate, so if there is a low turnout, you are unlikely to get a result. In effect, this would make a failure to vote a "no" vote. You can also specify a minimum turnout for the result to be valid.

[Alex Holowczak]

To me, the 2/3 majority being needed makes no sense at all.

When a decision is made regarding something that represents a major change and is difficult or impossible to reverse a simple majority may not be sufficient to represent a concensus.

Indeed, a simple majority is not necessarily sufficient to represent a consensus. I find it difficult to justify a democratic decision where the wishes of the majority can be outvoted by the wishes of a minority.