UKC

Cannot resist in making this posting. Apologies in advance.

A referendum (in some countries synonymous with a plebiscite — or a vote on a ballot question) is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to vote on a particular proposal. This may result in the adoption of a new law.

Some definitions of 'plebiscite' suggest that it is a type of vote to change the constitution or government of a country.[1] However, some other countries define it differently. For example, Australia defines 'referendum' as a vote to change the constitution, and 'plebiscite' as a vote that does not affect the constitution.[2] In contrast, Ireland has only ever held one plebiscite, which was the vote to adopt its constitution, and every other vote has been called a referendum.

Critics[who?] of the referendum argue that voters in a referendum are more likely to be driven by transient whims than by careful deliberation, or that they are not sufficiently informed to make decisions on complicated or technical issues. Also, voters might be swayed by propaganda, strong personalities, and expensive advertising campaigns. James Madison argued that direct democracy is the "tyranny of the majority".

I happen to like the last paragraph, as after Brexit I believe this last paragraph is highly relevant.

Thanks Wiki!

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

No comment on the chances of a second referendum, but the literal meaning is,

'To be brought back'

Ie to be referred back (to the electorate)

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Here is the urban dictionary offering for
'Sore loser'.
I particularly like the 'scragile frotum. '
Which one suits you and other sore Brexit losers?
http://urbanthesaurus.org/synonyms/sore%20loser

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

We all know too (surely) how the most notorious tyrant in history used plebiscites precisely because he understood everything that's expressed in that last paragraph.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

In 1962, during the debate on the case for a referendum on whether to join the EEC, Lord Beloff argued that a referendum is meaningful only if clear alternatives are set before the electorate. In the absence of such clarity;

"the electorate would . . .be doing no more than indicating a very general bias one way or another."

That is the situation we are in.

In reply to ian caton:

That is debatable as the margin is not exactly overwhelming nor sufficient to indicate anything other than the effect of campaign whim and noise. That is why a threshold before constitutional change is desirable as a vote overcoming the threshold definitely cannot be quantum foam during the campaign.

Constitutional status quo is often "entrenched" and requires more than a simple majority to overthrow. Imagine a simple majority of say 500 - is that enough to indicate a clear opinion?

Two thirds majority and no one can argue with the outcome

In reply to wercat:

Agreed, it would be a lot easier for everyone if the vote had been 55:45 one way or the other.

In reply to Dave the Rave:


It's interesting, this idea of winners and losers.

Who has won and lost, only time will tell, but it won't have much to do with Brexit.

Chances are, the poor and disadvantaged in society will continue to lose and the wealthy will continue to win. But that has more to do with our preference for low taxes, cutting benefits and privatisation of public services.

Europe has always been a great distraction tactic for political parties (one in particular). For me, it's all been a massive waste of money and time, given we will end up negotiating a bunch of similar treaties at great expense, alongside a lengthy period of uncertainty. And for what, exactly?

All we've done is cancel the political equivalent of a gym membership. We'll find other ways to exercise of course so we don't get fat and lazy, but otherwise not much will change everywhere else.

The only thing for me is that, sadly, many people have got very angry about what is really just two slightly different ways of dealing with other countries we are near to.

Disclaimer: I don't mean this to come across as anything other than trying to explain how I feel about it all (a complete farce)

In reply to mountainbagger:

A referendum is where you ask a load of ill-informed half-wits for an opinion and are then stupid enough to heed what they say.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

This is why sensible dictators do not hold referendums - unless they are rigged of course. You can hardly expect the populace to make a sensible informed decision.