Re: Ignoring the Electorate?
In most developed democracies, a referendum to make major constitutional change requires a representative majority ( >50% of the electorate), or even a super majority (usually 60-75% of electorate). Leaving the EU, and all it associated costs, should be classed as major constitutional change so why was, at least, a representative majority not enforced?
Parliament gave the people a NON-BINDING referendum on whether the populous thought being part of the EU was a good or bad thing. This is nothing more than an opinion poll and so positive and negative options were provided.
The Government overrode Parliament and made the poll BINDING. This decision had severe consequences, aside from undermining parliamentary democracy.
1. Once binding, it should have been a one horse race - "Do you want to change the constitution?"
2. ONLY "Leave" votes should have been counted
3. The decision to leave the EU should have only been taken if (at least) >50% of the electorate voted to do so.
The shit storm the UK is now in should never have happened if democracy had been respected.
"4 We can no longer blame Brussels. This is perhaps the most important point of all. If we left the EU, we would end this sterile debate, and we would have to recognise that most of our problems are not caused by “Bwussels”, but by chronic British short-termism, inadequate management, sloth, low skills, a culture of easy gratification and under-investment in both human and physical capital and infrastructure."
- Boris Johnson (apparently a good reason to the leave the EU...)
"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way."
- Nigel Farage (pre-referendum ...now post-referendum a 2nd referendum is undemocratic?)