rekrunner wrote:
So many questions...
I suppose it depends on the country's organization of government, and to what extent it allows/permits referendums.
In USA, I cannot think of any circumstance.
In the UK, national referendums appear to require a specific act of parliament, and even then, it is non-binding on the Government and Parliament.
The Swiss seem to have a good system.
I cannot provide you any examples of a successful referendum. "jesseriley" just said marijuana -- sounds good to me. Marijuana has been demonized for decades -- plenty of conspiracy theories about that.
I do know that there were many unanswered questions after the Brexit referendum, and there was that whole saga of Cambridge Analytica where the extent of the misinformation campaign is still unknown.
I didn't say I agreed with the result -- I said "I think it will be worse for Britain than Europe, especially in the short term, but they will eventually forge new deals and adapt in the long term."
I agreed with the enforcement of the result, as, even though it was a non-binding referendum, Cameron promised to honor it.
Cameron was foolish to call for it and agree to honor it. It was a gamble that backfired in a big way for him and for the UK.
I have no doubt that the referendum was non-binding, because, as we have seen, they cannot be constitutionally.
I also said "to be fair there was misinformation in both "leave" and "remain" campaigns" in my very first post.
I can have it all of those ways.
The takeaway points were that national referendums, like the "EU referendum" require an Act of Parliament, and even then, cannot be constitutionally binding. Before recent times, it was considered "unconstitutional" and "alien devices". It doesn't seem important that there were many other smaller referendums, which I assume are equally constitutionally non-binding on the Government and Parliament.
That's fine if the people were fully informed of all the consequences, and that they were not misinformed, and if they had given more guidance on how to leave. Binary questions do not give more than one answer and there were many questions. There are still many questions unanswered that will have to be decided/negotiated during the transition period, which will likely require more extensions.
Now you've asked the right question. Yes. Either, or. The government should have resolved these questions before triggering Article 50. This could have been in the form of a second referendum asking "how should we leave?", or perhaps a series of indicative votes to Parliament. I was not in favor of a second referendum as a "re-do", because then if "remain" won, what next -- a third referendum as a tie-breaker?
I did not decide, but kept myself informed of the aftermath, particularly (as I have mentioned a few times above) the role of Cambridge Analytica in the Leave.EU campaign, in addition to bus-size slogans about the NHS.
Yes the US vote of 2016 was also mis-informed -- another Cambridge Analytica success story.
2008 was the result of a backlash of 8 years under an unpopular president who got us into two wars (the second one by lying to Congress, the American people, and the United Nations) that we are still fighting, and almost caused an economic collapse of the whole world.
That is how democracies work, and to some extent we have to accept the results because that is how the system works, unless another working system, like the judicial system, allows us to right some wrongs.
However, in the UK, referendums are not a necessary part of the UK government, and they are non-binding, so we don't have to necessarily accept the result.
‘I will admit to being unfamiliar about many of the intricate and ceremonial details of the process of the UK government and election process’
‘The people of UK and the US should not ever be consulted on any matters they elected their representatives to decide’
‘That's how a "representative democracy" works -- people are not consulted on the important decisions’
‘I never said I "do not want to enact the democratic result of the 2016 referendum’
‘This whole notion that the public needs to micro-manage what they elected their representatives to manage seems unusual and unrealistic’
‘I did say that the US and UK people should not be consulted on matters they have elected their representatives to decide.
As you put it, the people have lent their sovereignty to Congress, or to the Parliament (respectively)’
As I mentioned you have an incoherent message. You would appear to have a very undemocratic approach and although not perfect, democracy is the best system we have. The key principle that you continuously skirt around and ignore is that politicians should not get to decide which votes they respect. Regardless of your belief in the wisdom of the decision to call a referendum on Europe (our 3rd one in the UK and therefore part of our political history and tradition).