Here is an excerpt from today’s New York Times:
“The decisive win by the ‘Leave’ campaign exposed deep divides: young versus old, urban versus rural, Scotland versus England. The recriminations flew fast, not least at Mr. Cameron, who had made the decision to call the referendum on membership in the bloc to manage a rebellion in his own Conservative Party, only to have it destroy his government and tarnish his legacy.”
Referendums are a dangerous device because they tend to measure the emotions of the moment and are largely decided by the masses who are ignorant of the subject matter. Our founding fathers fully understood this and built into the Constitution layers of safe guards against such occurrences: Two houses of Congress must approve, the President can veto, the Senate and House can only overturn a veto with a two thirds vote. The Supreme Court assures that it is constitutional.
As for amending the Constitution, the obstacles both federal and state are so great that it seldom occurs.
To think that a swing of 2% of English voters in 24 hour period would have safeguarded the half century direction of the nation is mind bogging and so very sad. If a poll were to be taken of the electorate in the near future, we presume that a substantial proportion of voters would regret their ‘protest vote’ and now want to remain in the European Union.
Minimally, a higher burden than a simple majority should have been required, perhaps 60%.
If this leads to the ultimate break up of much of the European Union, it could not only result in economic set backs for all s the members but yet more wars at a future date.
Dumb, dumb, dumb. But once ‘Humpty Dumpty falls off the wall’, who is there to put him together again?
