[lostlogin]

I think the overriding point is that a simple majority is completely the wrong format for descisions like this. I’d have suggested a two thirds majority requires for change. There is also the argument about them stifling debate.

There is an intersting criticism of the format in the below link from Chris Patten

“I think referendums are awful. The late and great Julian Critchley used to say that, not very surprisingly, they were the favourite form of plebiscitary democracy of Mussolini and Hitler. They undermine Westminster. What they ensure, as we saw in the last election, is that if you have a referendum on an issue, politicians during an election campaign say: "Oh, we're not going to talk about that, we don't need to talk about that, that's all for the referendum." So during the last election campaign, the euro was hardly debated. I think referendums are fundamentally anti-democratic in our system, and I wouldn't have anything to do with them. On the whole, governments only concede them when governments are weak.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum

[walshemj]

And there is a LOT of uk case law /precedent on this ie 2/3 or even 75% to make changes to the rules or organisation or to pass some types of motions at company AGM's is common.

Personally I think the CBI and Directors Institute lost the plot and let a few "bad apples" fuck the economy up - should have done what the TUC did in the 50's

[makomk]

I don't think there's any precedent for requiring such a supermajority in this case. Actually joining the EU required the support of 0% of the population in a referendum - there was no referendum on joining, the 1975 referendum was merely on whether we should remain in. The same arguments against leaving were made back then too, and if leave had won there'd probably have been exactly the same kind of pressure against following through on it.

[walshemj]

Citrine and any parliamentary based system (even the local allotment society ) plus the fact that every listed UK company AGM follows the same 2/3 /3/4 rule for major votes

[dragonwriter]

> I think referendums are awful. The late and great Julian Critchley used to say that, not very surprisingly, they were the favourite form of plebiscitary democracy of Mussolini and Hitler.

Referenda are the only mechanism of plebiscitary democracy (which is democracy by plebiscite, which is a synonym for referendum), so calling them someone's favorite form of plebiscitary democracy is vacuous and tautology true.

But neither Hitler nor Mussolini is particularly known as a supporter of democracy, whether plebiscitary or otherwise, so aside from the nullity of the literal reading, the clearly intended implication is false.

[growlist]

> They undermine Westminster

That's an argument against referenda?!

[tomp]

> I’d have suggested a two thirds majority requires for change.

Which position would you consider the "default"? Slavery? Prohibition on gay marriage? Ban on abortion? (All of these were "changed" through history, some very recently.)

[lostlogin]

It goes both ways, are you happy for those to pass into law with a simple majority?

None of those were referendums where I live, were any of them referendums where you live?