This is what was very worrying to me over an issue as important as this: even if ten people more had voted to "Brexit" rather than to "Bremain", we would still be talking about this Brexit move.
I would have thought that a SUPER-MAJORITY clause should have been specified - that unless a difference like 10% or even 15% was achieved - the 43-year-old status quo should be maintained. Is that not what is done, when 2/3 majority or 4/5 majority is required rather than simple majority in parliamentary system? Or that if the vote is within 5%, a five-year breathing or cooling-off period will be provided, and a re-vote taken, after which a simple majority would be allowed?
When we couple it with the fact that it appears that many of the UK voters did not REALLY know the full CONSEQUENCES of the outcome of their vote - hence a recent uptick in Google searches for "EU" AFTER the vote - we have a problem....so we might also institute a ISSUE-KNOWLEDGE test for voters in a democracy - what ethicist Jason Brennan reminds us is called "epistocracy"
But that is spilled milk now - or is it not?
Bolaji Aluko
Shaking his head
No comments:
Post a Comment