[Info-vax] The changing world

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 7/5/2022 5:36 PM, 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?

Declaring it non-binding gave them a bit of space, but following
a non-binding referendum should still be the expectation.

Otherwise there is no point in having a referendum at all.

> 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.

That is no so obvious to me.

The wikipedia article on UK referendums says 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom says:

"Referendums are normally not legally binding, so legally the Government 
can ignore the results;"

Arne