From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 13 Oct 17 - 05:29 AM
Let’s see: suppose the bar was set at 75% and that was the turnout. Let’s say that the required majority was 60% and the result was akenaton’s 61%. That’s still well under half the electorate voting for the change. To ensure a majority of all those entitled to vote, which I would say is the minimum requirement to make an irreversible and highly significant change, a turnout of 75% would require a majority of just under 67% voting for the change. That’s where I would set the bars. In those circumstances, no- one on the losing side would be able to claim no majority/mandate for change. One of the divisive elements would have been removed. That’s a much better shot at real democracy, though I still don’t believe in referendums anyway. Of course, I can see why leavers wouldn’t have liked it.

It's interesting, this idea of retrospectively changing the rules, and retaining the status quo if a certain threshold isn't reached.

Of course, if the 2016 referendum were revised in this strange fashion, we would need to also look at the 1975 referendum which bound us to the EU. That was a 67.23% 'Yes' vote, on the basis of a 64.2% turnout.
So only 43.2% of the eligible electorate voted to bind us to the EU.

That's it, either we stick with the results of the recent referendum and we're out of the EU,
Or, we review (and overturn) both referendums and are out of the EU.


"Simples"