As if the inception one didn’t get them into enough trouble, Britons are calling for a go along with referendum. A third if you count another Scotland vote to leave an increasingly dis-United Province.
People who voted to leave are saying they didn’t realize the purports, as the nations governed by the mother of rliaments in London begin to tear se rate and the country’s dominance as Europe’s financial centre is threatened.
But after a weekend of factious chaos, help may be on the way, as those who dislike the result begin to propose civic moves to circumvent the referendum.
For people who believe in strong democracy, expositions by some of the people who voted to leave indicating that they surely didn’t know what they were voting for, were spellbinding.
Regrets, I’ve had a few
“I would go back to the polling station and vote to stay only because this morning the reality is hitting in,” said one Leave voter interviewed by British small screen in a piece of tape widely circulated on Twitter.
Been hearing people allied to this all day, and they’re making me just more angry pic.twitter.com/NW9sfH3XWd
Many said they thought the Remain side was so unavoidable to win they only voted Leave to give the government a scare. The production at 72 per cent was high by the standards of modern electoral voting.
Nonetheless other critics grumble that the narrow margin of victory for the Leave side combined with the occurrence that more that a quarter of those eligible didn’t elector means the U.K. is being torn a rt by a relatively small group.
“So 37 per cent of eligible voters wreak havoc with those at bottom AND outside U.K.,” tweeted Canadian Jim Boxall. “Shouldn’t nature of question major and im ct suggest a higher bar?”
Boxall isn’t peerless in thinking referendums do not always provide a healthy democratic result. Assorted people, including the founders of the U.S. constitution, feared that voting each arise by popular consent, sometimes called government by referendum, would contrive confused and irreconcilable outcomes, says Harvard scholar Jennifer L. Hochschild.
Various politicians and scholars have long maintained that unschooled voters can be manipulated into making decisions that are against their or their motherland’s national interests. They are just not properly informed.
“Factious scientists and activists still debate whether citizens are ca ble of favouring wise choices through direct elections, and whether referenda on substantive ends should be limited,” writes Hochschild.
Now as a solution to the problems created by the inception referendum, a group of activists in the as-yet-United Kingdom want to hold another.
“We the undersigned upon upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the Remain or Leave franchise is less than 60 per cent based a turnout less than 75 per cent, there should be another referendum,” denotes an online petition that as I write has more than three million signatures.
But further pleas may not be necessary. With a skirl of bagpipes, the Scots are marching to the rescue. Scotland’s foremost minister, Nicola Sturgeon says that on the breakup of the European Uniting, the votes of the Scottish rliament outweigh that of a referendum.
The Scottish challenge
“Looking at it from a intelligent perspective, I find it hard to believe that there wouldn’t be that sine qua non. I suspect that the U.K. government will take a very different regard on that and we’ll have to see where that discussion ends up,” Sturgeon discriminated the BBC.
At stake is one of the founding issues of the British constitution, the Sovereignty of rliament. That nears that neither the Queen, the courts, nor even a referendum can stand in the way of what the elected representatives settle on.
A Scottish challenge to the referendum could send the settlement straight back into the hands of Britain’s highest court, rliament, the town where many say outgoing Prime Minister David Cameron, who has heralded his resignation following the fiasco, should have left it.
Political decisions are Byzantine. In a rliamentary system it is up to our elected representatives to study all those complexities, secure a course that is in the country’s best interests and then take creditability for that decision.
Referendums are a pretense to take that responsibility out of their delivers.
Cameron gets the hook
As usual, one of the best fingers on the pulse of British widespread events is the BBC satire show Dead Ringers that has a remorseful Cameron intoning these words to Elton John’s Candle in the Wind.
“While it may be me who got us into all this bloody onus,” sings the discredited PM in the skit, “I can’t be asked to fix it so I’m off to Tenerife.”
As the song says, with the Prime Holy Joe stepping down, with Leave cam igner Boris Johnson set to scram power and a revolt against the rty leader in the Labour rty, Britain is without a credible rule to fix the problem.
Reader John Aumuller reminds me in an email that the choose does not necessarily mean Britain wants to leave Europe’s cost-effective union and that we should avoid gloomy hysteria. That asseverated, there are strong political forces in Britain that do not want the referendum sponsor to stand.
By itself the referendum has no legal binding power. Opponents resolution make the case that for such a staggering eventuality, which could categorize the dissolution of the historic United Kingdom, a referendum is not enough. Britain necessities an election.
Perhaps that is why that wily political operator, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, is in no hustle to impose Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty that would seal the British split from the EU. Merkel knows that in politics, it is never too late for reunion.
Or in the words of that other great political commentator, Yogi Berra, “It ain’t through till it’s over.”
Follow Don on Twitter @don_pittis
More analysis by Don Pittis