[Info-vax] The changing world

[Chris Townley]

On 09/07/2022 19:29, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> 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
> 
What Cameron should have done is to set a minimum level- say 60 or 70% - 
as was done for the last Scottish independence referendum.

Chris

-- 
Chris