Independent Leyton Orient Forum

In view of recent events. Some geezer was sounding off about Referendums today. ( Personally speaking I think they are unconstitutional and Precious 'Arold started a dangerous precedent ). The geezer was saying, that the parameters of the Referendum should be carefully set out, should mainly be for confirmation of Government policy and should only be acted upon with a 60% + result. Dave's Referendum was a right pig's ear.

Almost like we need to revisit Magna Carta. After 800 years it’s time for an update.

West Side Story wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 10:38 pm In view of recent events. Some geezer was sounding off about Referendums today. ( Personally speaking I think they are unconstitutional and Precious 'Arold started a dangerous precedent ). The geezer was saying, that the parameters of the Referendum should be carefully set out, should mainly be for confirmation of Government policy and should only be acted upon with a 60% + result. Dave's Referendum was a right pig's ear.

So how do you think they are unconstitutional. if you want 60% + result then you would also need to have the same terms for a general election, in which case nearly always would it result in a hung parliament , another remoaner who wants to change everything until they get the result they want

Unconstitutional because the UK had never had one until Harold Wilson ordered one to confirm our Membership of the Common Market ( as it was then ). The first since it's formation in 1707. The constituent parts of the UK have never had one prior to 1707 either. The 60% is not my idea. Many other countries have them, with all sorts of rules. The Swiss love a Referendum ( but then again they have only given women the vote fairly recently )

point nine one eight wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:52 pm

West Side Story wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 10:38 pm In view of recent events. Some geezer was sounding off about Referendums today. ( Personally speaking I think they are unconstitutional and Precious 'Arold started a dangerous precedent ). The geezer was saying, that the parameters of the Referendum should be carefully set out, should mainly be for confirmation of Government policy and should only be acted upon with a 60% + result. Dave's Referendum was a right pig's ear.

So how do you think they are unconstitutional. if you want 60% + result then you would also need to have the same terms for a general election, in which case nearly always would it result in a hung parliament , another remoaner who wants to change everything until they get the result they want

Exactly this. If the vote was 60/40 people would then be asking for a two thirds majority saying 60/40 was unfair. Seen to remember the vote on proportional representation and that didn’t work.

60/40. So that means 59% of the population want something but because 41% don’t, the minority win. That’s fair is it? A simple majority is as fair as it gets.

West Side Story wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 7:00 am Unconstitutional because the UK had never had one until Harold Wilson ordered one to confirm our Membership of the Common Market ( as it was then ). The first since it's formation in 1707. The constituent parts of the UK have never had one prior to 1707 either. The 60% is not my idea. Many other countries have them, with all sorts of rules. The Swiss love a Referendum ( but then again they have only given women the vote fairly recently )

The UK has always had a constitution

What it hasn't got is a written constitution.


A written constitution is not really very effective in UK Law, because it would require an Act of Parliament to create it and it could easily be revoked by another Act of Parliament .

If you created a constitution that said it required say a 75% majority vote ( of mps or in a referendum) to change any part of it. This constitution would have to be created by an Act of Parliament.


That Act of Parliament could be overturned by another Act of Parliament.

There is in UK law no way to entrench a written constitution or a Bill of Rights which is why politicians who call for it in opposition suddenly go silent on it when in power.

West Side Story wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 10:38 pm In view of recent events. Some geezer was sounding off about Referendums today. ( Personally speaking I think they are unconstitutional and Precious 'Arold started a dangerous precedent ). The geezer was saying, that the parameters of the Referendum should be carefully set out, should mainly be for confirmation of Government policy and should only be acted upon with a 60% + result. Dave's Referendum was a right pig's ear.

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 7:09 am

point nine one eight wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:52 pm

West Side Story wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 10:38 pm In view of recent events. Some geezer was sounding off about Referendums today. ( Personally speaking I think they are unconstitutional and Precious 'Arold started a dangerous precedent ). The geezer was saying, that the parameters of the Referendum should be carefully set out, should mainly be for confirmation of Government policy and should only be acted upon with a 60% + result. Dave's Referendum was a right pig's ear.

So how do you think they are unconstitutional. if you want 60% + result then you would also need to have the same terms for a general election, in which case nearly always would it result in a hung parliament , another remoaner who wants to change everything until they get the result they want

Exactly this. If the vote was 60/40 people would then be asking for a two thirds majority saying 60/40 was unfair. Seen to remember the vote on proportional representation and that didn’t work.

60/40. So that means 59% of the population want something but because 41% don’t, the minority win. That’s fair is it? A simple majority is as fair as it gets.

I think that if you're going to try to describe any position as "the settled will of the British people", then you probably need a bigger strength of feeling that a simple majority (52/48, 55/45 etc)- especially if that position is a) a one-way, never to be reversed, constitutional change, and b) an interpretation of the answers to a simple binary question.

Referendums are not a great way to govern.

Who says it has to be a “ one way, never to be reversed constitutional decision”? There was a referendum in 1975 to gauge support for staying in the EEC and the result was to stay in. There was a referendum in 2016 to gauge support for staying in the EU and the result was to leave. The Scots had the independence referendum in 2015 ( supposedly a once in a generation opportunity) now there is a strong possibility there will be another. I get your point about referendums but talking about decisions that can never be reversed or altered is nonsense.

Sorry - when I wrote "one way" I meant that with one result it was irreversible (and I do think the "leave" or "independence" result IS irreversible) but the "status quo" result is not.

For example, Farage himself said that if his side had lost narrowly (he actually said 48/52) then it would be unfinished business (his words) and that the campaign to leave would continue - presumably to another referendum and another until he won, or until it became entirely clear that support for leaving was dropping. So "one-way" - if the country leaves, that's the end of it, whereas if the status quo is maintained, there's always another chance at it.

The same applies (and IS applying) in Scotland. The result of Indyref was to remain in the Union, but now, 5 years later - with significantly changed circumstances - there's a huge groundswell for another Indyref. Again, had "Yes" won the day in 2014, that would have been that - the Union, once broken, wouldn't be put back together again.

Either decision ending up with the Status Quo would be reversible - but not many divorces end in a reconciliation - especially one as messy as this.

Okay, I get your point now. I guess it all depends on whether or not you believe these results are reversible ( albeit over a lengthy period of time) - personally I think they are. Circumstances change and public opinions fluctuate over the years and human nature means people will usually vote for what they perceive is best for them.

As everybody knows on this board , i’m a passionate Brexiteer but something as got to be done and changed because we can’t go through this again. This topic has split our country in a way I never thought was possible. I love my country and I don’t want to go through this poo poo again . Edit, just to add if Ted Heath was alive today, i’d want the Cnut hung for lying to the country back in 74 . By the way, I chose my words wisely there

RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 4:47 pm As everybody knows on this board , i’m a passionate Brexiteer but something as got to be done and changed because we can’t go through this again. This topic has split our country in a way I never thought was possible. I love my country and I don’t want to go through this poo poo again . Edit, just to add if Ted Heath was alive today, i’d want the Cnut hung for lying to the country back in 74 . By the way, I chose my words wisely there

I agree that it's split the country horribly, and sadly, that toothpaste is out of the tube now. And it's difficult to see any way of healing it.

redintheface wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 11:19 am Who says it has to be a “ one way, never to be reversed constitutional decision”? There was a referendum in 1975 to gauge support for staying in the EEC and the result was to stay in. There was a referendum in 2016 to gauge support for staying in the EU and the result was to leave. The Scots had the independence referendum in 2015 ( supposedly a once in a generation opportunity) now there is a strong possibility there will be another. I get your point about referendums but talking about decisions that can never be reversed or altered is nonsense.

Just to add to stillspikes later reply
It really would be an irreversible decision,
In the sense that we leave the EU with the best terms
supposedly as they are now.

If we wanted to rejoin the EU later
We would need to adopt the Euro &
probably pay out more with less benefits
to the nation available.

We must agree to differ - IF at some unspecified point in the future the UK should decide to seek to rejoin the EU ( or its successor), no one can say right now what the political circumstances and conditions may be then! It's quite feasible for example that there might have been other countries that also opt to leave in the intervening period whilst others may have been accepted in - so to suggest " we would need to adopt the Euro and probably pay out more with less benefits" can only be speculation.