Regardless of the epithets used to describe them, it's worth remembering that, accounting for turn-out, it was around 37% of the British electorate that voted to leave the EU.
Errr yes? That was the whole point. The general concept I had of it was along the lines of "Lets see what the general opinion is, so if there's a large majority one way or another we'll know if we need to look into it".
The non-binding bit was so they didn't have to _commit_ to actually doing anything, just in case.
If that was the case it would have been called a plebiscite rather than a referendum.
That it was in actual fact a plebiscite to those who actually understand this nuance isn't relevant to the "Brexit means Brexit" hordes who don't. Or to your friends and neighbours looking on aghast ...
Sure, it isn't just apathy (as in your example). But if you compare the turn-out for the Scottish independence vote in 2014 (~85%) with the EU referendum (~72%), I think it might be a considerable factor.
Another factor is complacency on the part of those that would have voted to remain: polling leading up to the referendum showed a clear remain win.
(I should point out that I'm not suggesting that the result of the referendum isn't pro-Brexit, but that the numbers don't support the case for a so-called "hard Brexit")
Yes, as time goes by it seems as though sense is starting to sink in, though it is still quite close. A year ago I wouldn't have been confident at all.
I'd be for a second referendum on an actual agreement for what Britain's relationship with the EU would be, post-Brexit. Some of the options, particularly those favoured by those that voted to remain, are poor.
I think many people right across the continent would probably have similar feelings.
Many are "unhappy" with how the EU is presently being run but nobody would want to "leave".
The confusion around Brexit emerges from just how poorly the referendum was run. It was a choice between "remain" which can only be a vote for the status quo (unsatisfactory for many) and "leave" which is open to so many interpretations as to be useless.
But to call Brexit a "referendum" in any constitutional sense is talking it up a bit. It was a plebiscite. An actual binding referendum against a written constitution would have to provide actual wording; rather than just a single word.
Reminds me of all of the scapegoating of the EU for local policies and outright fiction like banana curve standards.
Ironically the actual things to object to the EU about like their godawful internet policy proposals aren't on the radar.
Anyway UK has parliamentary supremacy so a constitution would be empty words without changing that. I would say that the policy seems very dangerous but constituions are messy in terms of getting ease of change right - especially in such an legal body. Imagine if nasty old bits like not allowing Jews to inherit property got embedded.
Semantics about strawmen applied to history aside it still would have added significant friction to it. Antisemitism was downright fashionable until WW2 and it could have impeded more gradual progress like the first Jewish member of parliament. It can be changed but it is significantly harder and easily can wind up judged "not worth the effort". Just look at how long it has been since the US ratified an amendment to the constitution.
I thought this was because Britain didn't have a constitution as such so the don't have actual referendums?
> An actual binding referendum against a written constitution would have to provide actual wording; rather than just a single word.
I don't disagree for any philosophical reason, but this is very easy to abuse for anyone that favors the status quo. The most notable example I can think of is the republic referendum (to remove the queen as head of state) here in Australia. Deciding the form of the republic was done first and the constitutional changes to do just that was the only question put to the public, splitting the Republican vote.
On the other hand the EU has a bit of a reputation for voting until the plebs get it right, so I can definitely see the case for binding referendums.
> I thought this was because Britain didn't have a constitution as such so the don't have actual referendums?
The UK does have a constitution, it's simply not codified into a single document. Parliamentary sovereignty means that Acts of Parliament are part of the constitution, and so any referendum's result cannot be binding, which may partly explain why they weren't seen as part of UK politics up until recently - there have only ever been three national referendums, one on EC membership in 1975, on changing the voting system in 2011, and leaving the EU in 2016.
There are a 1.4 million 18 and 19 year olds in the UK that didn't get to vote in 2016.
Likewise there are over 1 million who did get to vote who are no longer alive.
When accounting for the entire country, about 1 in 4 voted to leave the EU, 1 in 4 voted to remain, 1 in 4 didn't know/care and trusted their MPs to do what was best, and 1 in 4 were not allowed to vote because they were too young and must rely on their MPs to do what is best.
Other people also voted for brexit, including young stupid racists, middle aged opportunistic millionaires, people who wanted to vote against Cameron, and other groups.
Overall only 26% voted for brexit, and many of those "old stupid racists" have since died, so no, it's nowhere near 50% of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar that are "old stupid racists".
Well there's been plenty of polls, analysis and investigation since the Brexit result trying to slice and dice and determine what was behind the result and sorry but that's the picture that has emerged.
For what it's worth, I don't think it's as a result of any innate quality of the English psyche, indeed as the birthplace of liberalism and one of the most ethnically diverse populations in Europe such could hardly be the case.
My hot take is that it's emerging from most ordinary people's frustration at how the UK economy has been steered in such a way as to ensure that the benefits of globalisation go to a few while most everybody else has to deal with any negative consequences. Very telling that the core economic hubs were anti-brexit and the "forgotten" parts of the UK were pro-brexit. Scotland notwithstanding of course who would've left the UK a few years before only for the issues of staying in the EU ...
