OT: What a pillock

[the_anticlough]

I was hoping for a detailed debate from both sides during the Referendum campaign- I was sadly disappointed.

I was a leave voter before the debate and nothing from Remain changed my mind.

I was though disappointed in the leave campaign as well.

Fair comment, for a lot of the time it was Farage, Johnson and Gove v Cameron and Osborne. Gawd help us

[sidders]

If the vote had gone your way I doubt very much you would be shouting for 2/3 majority.

Another one who just doesn't get it. Forget the word referendum and think 'constitutional change'. Forget EU and think 'capital punishment'. To change from the present system to restoring the death penalty would demand a 2/3 majority of the people, NOT a simple majority.
You are assuming that the vote starts out as two equal options and the public picks one of them. I am saying that for a country to change a major plank in its constitution 2/3 of the people must agree.
Does that help?

[TheBlackHorse]

... the tiresome Snobhead 2, as ever, floats out his red herrings this time about 2/3 majority. The short-sighted/unknowing/deaf remoaners fail to understand this country would never have voted for ever closer union with Europe. All we wanted was an economic relationship based upon the EEC. If Remoaners haven't read FC0 30/1048, which is about how we were lied to by Edward Heath and his cronies, you need to; then you might understand why many politicians are no more than gravy-train journeymen.
If you think we should be dictated to by the Deutschland and its tart France then go and live there. David Cameron was badly advised to go gently to the nice EU people and was shafted. They don't want us to spoil their cosy party.
We have plenty of bright entrepreneurial people in this country to make our own way, thank you. Let us get on with it and you remoaners should stop living in the past imagining this federal utopia where you have to do sod all because Big Brother will look after you.
COYP

[drillerpie]

Regarding the two thirds thing, a lot of countries have a 66% rule for constitutional change which stops a government with a small consensus over-reaching and passing controversial laws. The system I know best is the Italian constitution and it works like this:

If a government passes a law which involves changing the constitution (there's a Constitutional Court to decide if a law goes against the constitution or not) then it has to be passed in both houses with a two thirds majority. In that case it's assumed that the public is is favour because it basically needs two or more major parties to vote for it.

If a law changing the constitution is passed in parliament with less than a two thirds majority, it goes to referendum where it has to be approved, if not it doesn't become law.

If a law amending the constitution is passed with a two thirds majority there can still be a referendum if enough people are against it (I can't remember exactly but if something like 500,000 signatures are collected to ask for one, and yes they check every single one, or if one fifth of the parliament asks for one), then they have a referendum to abrogate the new law.

In any referendum though, I'm pretty sure a simple majority is needed rather than 66%, the only restriction is that they have to reach a quorum of a certain number of total votes in the referendum (I think 50% too) otherwise that's invalid as well.

That's what just happened with the referendum in Macedonia, and is also why whenever Berlusconi was forced to have a referendum he used to hold it on a Sunday in July when everyone was on the beach.

So I'm not sure if there are any countries that have 66% thresholds for a referendum in itself, can any foreign pies enlighten us?

[seriouspie]

The UK does not have a Constitution. Parliament is sovereign and can debate new laws which require only a majority of 1 to get agreement from the Lords and then entered into the Statute book.

[BigFatPie]

So you know which way I voted ? soz , f00kin voted

Well all the Remainers I know are charming and intelligent Sailor Boy, so you definitely voted to leave.

[drillerpie]

The UK does not have a Constitution. Parliament is sovereign and can debate new laws which require only a majority of 1 to get agreement from the Lords and then entered into the Statute book.

Thank you Captain Obvious, I was asking about other countries, with regards to the conversation about a two thirds majority in a referendum.

[magpie_mania]

Another one who just doesn't get it. Forget the word referendum and think 'constitutional change'. Forget EU and think 'capital punishment'. To change from the present system to restoring the death penalty would demand a 2/3 majority of the people, NOT a simple majority.
You are assuming that the vote starts out as two equal options and the public picks one of them. I am saying that for a country to change a major plank in its constitution 2/3 of the people must agree.
Does that help?

This is hard work! We understand exactly what you are saying, but asking how would it work IN PRACTICE if Leave had got 65% but we remain?

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how the Govt would deal with it. If you think TM is facing a difficult time now, I can't imagine what it would be like in that scenario

[i961pie]

Another one who just doesn't get it. Forget the word referendum and think 'constitutional change'. Forget EU and think 'capital punishment'. To change from the present system to restoring the death penalty would demand a 2/3 majority of the people, NOT a simple majority.
You are assuming that the vote starts out as two equal options and the public picks one of them. I am saying that for a country to change a major plank in its constitution 2/3 of the people must agree.
Does that help?

I know what you are saying NOW but can't remember you saying it before?

[seriouspie]

Thank you Captain Obvious, I was asking about other countries, with regards to the conversation about a two thirds majority in a referendum.

On closer inspection you were ...... sorry, I should have replied to Sid's post not yours