[Info-vax] The changing world

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 7/5/22 17:36, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> 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.
> 

If I had to interpret this I would say that it was made non-binding
because the pro-BREXIT  people did not expect it to pass and did not
want their hands tied.  It went the other way and the rest, as they
say, is history.

bill