[Info-vax] The changing world

[Phillip Helbig undress to reply]

In article <62c31ea6$0$702$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>,
=?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?= <arne at vajhoej.dk> writes: 

> > Yes, but it was announced as a non-binding referendum and it is clear
> > that many would have voted differently if it had been declared as
> > binding.
> 
> I don't know how clear that is.
> 
> It seems pretty weird to me to vote to leave if they wanted
> to stay because they assumed that the referendum result would
> be ignored.

I think that it is stupid, but there is such a thing as a "protest vote" 
where people vote other than they normally would in order to make a 
point (which is usually not noticed).

> > Of course, one is not forbidden to implement the result of a
> > non-binding referenendum,
> 
> I would say that it is expected to implement the result of
> such a referendum.
> 
> Otherwise there is no point.

Then what is the point of explicitly declaring it non-binding?

> >                        but if it is a) non-binding and b) close, as
> > in this case, then common sense dictates that there should have been a
> > binding referendum after, say, 6 months of debate.
> 
> There were a referendum. People voted. The politicians followed
> the majority's opinion.

See above.  Why was it declared to be non-binding.

Another things which I think is stupid: if there is a referendum, it 
must fulfill several criteria, one of which is that it be binding.  But 
the Brexit referendum was explicitly declared to be non-binding.

> If the politicians had ignored the result or ordered a new referendum
> hoping or a better result I could see a democratic problem.

No problem if a BINDING referendum was ordered.