The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

	Quote:	amogles
	I think a good government is ultimately one that gives the people what they want . Right or wrong. That’s what democracy is about .

I can't agree with this, especially when "what the people want" is determined by referenda with low rates of turn-out and wafer-thin margins. Sometimes (Brexit being a prime example) the people just don't have sufficient information, nor the legal and/or economic knowledge, to make the best decision. Additionally, governments make many diplomatic decisions with long-term consequences that the man on the street would never make—invoovement in foreign wars, for example—which may sometimes be necessary but unpopular. And finally, in conservative countries like Switzerland, there might be no social support.structures if it weren't for governmental oversight that didn't strictly follow the will of the people. (Even in Switzerland, the government has to find ways to work around "what the people want"—again, based on low voter turnout—to enact legislation that doesn't contravene other local and international laws.)

[Jim2007]

	Quote:
	I can't agree with this, especially when "what the people want" is determined by referenda with low rates of turn-out and wafer-thin margins. Sometimes (Brexit being a prime example) the people just don't have sufficient information, nor the legal and/or economic knowledge, to make the best decision. Additionally, governments make many diplomatic decisions with long-term consequences that the man on the street would never make—invoovement in foreign wars, for example—which may sometimes be necessary but unpopular. And finally, in conservative countries like Switzerland, there might be no social support.structures if it weren't for governmental oversight that didn't strictly follow the will of the people. (Even in Switzerland, the government has to find ways to work around "what the people want"—again, based on low voter turnout—to enact legislation that doesn't contravene other local and international laws.)

Comparing the U.K. to either Switzerland or Ireland just does not fly. I have voted in both Irish and Swiss referenda and I’d say that both provide adequate information.

I think tradition plays a big part in it. Switzerland and Ireland have a tradition of making strategic (how do I want the country run in the long term) and tactical (who do I want to carry it out in the short term) and certain rules of thumb have grown up such as never punishing a government with a vote in a referendum. This is very different to other countries such as the U.K. where all politics are party politics. It should not be surprising if voters from one tradition don’t do so well when asked to make a decision under the rules of another tradition.

In Switzerland and Ireland the decision is owned by the people and that means that revisiting the decision is much easier. Politicians are not invested in the decision they can simply hand it back saying we can’t make your decision work, you need to come up with something else. Likewise a government loosing a referendum they supported does not create a crisis in either country, it is just how they work.

Using a referendum in the U.K. was always going to be problematic because it is not their tradition.

[JackieH]

Indeed- combined with the fact no information was given about the realities of Brexit and which form it would take. NONE, apart from lies and more lies, before, during and after.

[Ato]

	Quote:	JackieH
	Indeed- combined with the fact no information was given about the realities of Brexit and which form it would take. NONE, apart from lies and more lies, before, during and after.

It would have been impossible to give an accurate image of how things would look beforehand, there was about 2 years of trying to flesh out an agreement with the EU that could have gone many ways.

[marton]

	Quote:	Ato
	It would have been impossible to give an accurate image of how things would look beforehand, there was about 2 years of trying to flesh out an agreement with the EU that could have gone many ways.

You mean the problem was, and still is, the people proposing Brexit had no clue or plan of how Brexit should look like in detail.

[Ato]

	Quote:	marton
	You mean the problem was, and still is, the people proposing Brexit had no clue or plan of how Brexit should look like in detail.

Yes, and a curse of referendums is that people can vote on things without a full understanding of the possible repercussions or benefits.

On the other side, the stay camp had it easy, vote stay and things stay the same.

[Tom1234]

	Quote:	marton
	You mean the problem was, and still is, the people proposing Brexit had no clue or plan of how Brexit should look like in detail.

I think one of the big problems was the same sort of problem the U.K. experienced when in the E.U.

Namely you can't make a decision on foreign policy, imports, exports, trade tariffs, migration, borders and so on alone. There's always one or more other countries too and they have to be in agreement with whatever you decide.
Not too different from being in the E.U.

If, on the other hand, any country involved in the U.K. or with a wish to be involved had said, upfront, before the referendum that if the U.K. left the E.U., they would guarantee that they would do x,y, and z and with conditions a,b,c then it would have far easier for the U.K. population to make an informed decision.

It wasn't going to happen though. In that regard, leaving the E.U. was a far more difficult and uncertain prospect than joining it in the first place.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	marton
	You mean the problem was, and still is, the people proposing Brexit had no clue or plan of how Brexit should look like in detail.

Nor did or do the Remainers. The "EU" from 40 years ago doesn't compare to what it is today, and most certainly neither to what it will be in 40 years.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	amogles
	I don’t know if a good government should necessarily be a good architect , planning the future in great detail . Visionary governments often tend to get overly dogmatic I think a good government is ultimately one that gives the people what they want . Right or wrong. That’s what democracy is about .

Why then is it intentionally made difficult to change the constitution? (or its equivalent)
How many countries provide a clearly defined way to get it changed without say by parliament and/or government?

I think the US constitution has worded this very succinctly:
The population has the right to pursue happiness.
Which kinda creates an obligation by the government to create an environment that allows (fosters) this.

Sidenote:
originally that (difficult to change) applied to CH as well. When introduced in 1891, launching a Volksinitiative (a partial change of the federal constitution) required 50k signatures, 7.6% of the (male only) voters back then. Today it takes 100k votes, but to get it passed still requires a double majority (the majority of the votes and of the Cantons).

[amogles]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	Why then is it intentionally made difficult to change the constitution? (or its equivalent) How many countries provide a clearly defined way to get it changed without say by parliament and/or government? I think the US constitution has worded this very succinctly: The population has the right to pursue happiness. Which kinda creates an obligation by the government to create an environment that allows (fosters) this.

The constitution is not a policy blueprint.

It is a basic framework that lays down an outline for the functioning of law and should (ideally) be free of any ideological or partisan policy. The more difficult it is to change, the less partisan and ideological it should be.

In Switzerland the constitution is constantly being added to through the activity of popular referenda. These changes are (typically) partisan and ideological and provide direct instructions to the government regarding policy. But they can also easily be changed.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	amogles
	The constitution is not a policy blueprint.

You seem to say in this post that it's good (can be appropriate or good) to keep fundamental stuff from being changed, at least from being changed on a whim. That's how I understand you here.

Yet you said it's the government's job to give the people what they want, "right or wrong".

To me that's a massive contradiction.

I agree that big changes need big hurdles. Like changing the constitution.

(btw, the Swiss one got changed just 13 times in the last 30 years by Volksinitiative, including the rather immaterial ones. And 23 times in the 120 years it exists. That doesn't meet my understanding of "constantly changed")

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Ato
	It would have been impossible to give an accurate image of how things would look beforehand, there was about 2 years of trying to flesh out an agreement with the EU that could have gone many ways.

Of course it is impossible to say with certainty but that does not mean that a free for all with no attempt to keep people within the bounds of reality is the alternative.

At every Irish referendum there is a commission headed by a current or retired Justice of the Supreme Court who is responsible for ensuring the public receives accurate information. Their most important power is that they have the right to comment of what both sides are saying.

If you are involved in a TV debate the last thing you want is for the commission to issue a statement the following morning saying you told a pack of lies on TV the previous evening!

It definitely helps to keep things grounded in reality.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	amogles
	In Switzerland the constitution is constantly being added to through the activity of popular referenda. These changes are (typically) partisan and ideological and provide direct instructions to the government regarding policy. But they can also easily be changed.

That is not the case as many of the referenda are challenges to the actions of parliament not changes to the constitution. It is the Swiss way for citizens to hold parliament to account.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	Nor did or do the Remainers. The "EU" from 40 years ago doesn't compare to what it is today, and most certainly neither to what it will be in 40 years.

Yes but there was not just one decision over the past 40 years. There were many decisions made by the UK parliament over that period committing the country to the EEC and eventually the EU. There was no need to hold referenda on it because that is how the UK is governed.

Just look at the number and content of EU relate referenda held in Ireland over the same period and you will get a feel for the decisions make by the UK parliament on behalf of its citizens.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	There was no need to hold referenda on it because that is how the UK is governed.

Exactly.

Yet now that some people are unhappy with a decision, they want to topple the entire thing. Not because the procedure is false but because they didn't get the desired outcome. Fundamentally, that's a complete disregard of democracy as it's been defined by and for the UK (the democratic elements the UK has).

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	Exactly. Yet now that some people are unhappy with a decision, they want to topple the entire thing. Not because the procedure is false but because they didn't get the desired outcome. Fundamentally, that's a complete disregard of democracy as it's been defined by and for the UK (the democratic elements the UK has).

Yes but when you have an imaginary constitution, that is to be expected! To my knowledge the UK is the only Parliament of Westminster style democracy that does not have a written constitution of some type. If the process is we’ll make it up as we go along then it should not be surprising that everyone wants their own version.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Yes but when you have an imaginary constitution, that is to be expected! To my knowledge the UK is the only Parliament of Westminster style democracy that does not have a written constitution of some type. If the process is we’ll make it up as we go along then it should not be surprising that everyone wants their own version.

Those who lost will want the rules changed anyway when things go against them.

That's what happened e.g. last november when, here in CH with written regulations, a proposition failed because it passed in too few cantons. The Greens, main proponents of the Volksinitiative at hand, immediately demanded that the rules be changed by dropping the requirement for the double majority (popular vote plus the majority of the cantons). Of course they never raised any comparable demands when things went their way. I'm pretty sure the other parties have reacted in a similar way in the past, it's a human thing.

[amogles]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	Those who lost will want the rules changed anyway when things go against them. That's what happened e.g. last november when, here in CH with written regulations, a proposition failed because it passed in too few cantons. The Greens, main proponents of the Volksinitiative at hand, immediately demanded that the rules be changed by dropping the requirement for the double majority (popular vote plus the majority of the cantons). Of course they never raised any comparable demands when things went their way. I'm pretty sure the other parties have reacted in a similar way in the past, it's a human thing.

Or in the USA how the Electoral Council is always called into question by those who lost an election because of it, and only afterwards.

People will always attempt to change the constitution and the voting laws to make it easier for them to win.

[amogles]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	At every Irish referendum there is a commission headed by a current or retired Justice of the Supreme Court who is responsible for ensuring the public receives accurate information. Their most important power is that they have the right to comment of what both sides are saying. If you are involved in a TV debate the last thing you want is for the commission to issue a statement the following morning saying you told a pack of lies on TV the previous evening!

This only works if the justice in question is totally impartial.

In a debate such as that over Brexit I think nobody who threw in their weight was impartial.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	Those who lost will want the rules changed anyway when things go against them. That's what happened e.g. last november when, here in CH with written regulations, a proposition failed because it passed in too few cantons. The Greens, main proponents of the Volksinitiative at hand, immediately demanded that the rules be changed by dropping the requirement for the double majority (popular vote plus the majority of the cantons). Of course they never raised any comparable demands when things went their way. I'm pretty sure the other parties have reacted in a similar way in the past, it's a human thing.

But it did not gain any credibility beyond its only little group and that is the big difference.

I think any other consideration though is that there is no process available to the loosing side in the UK to challenge the result beyond endless bellyaching - there is no way to force them to bring it to an end. In Ireland any citizen can take a case to the Supreme Court if they don’t agree with the outcome, in Switzerland a new referendum can be launched, but in the UK you can just continue to bellyache.