Referendums That Were Entirely Ignored (1956-2016)

[@uziTGC]

Also, I'm quite disappointed in your outro "second channel, don't care". This channel is how I found you :(

[@user-eu5wn5db3g]

Hayekian cool pic bro!!!!

[@aapelihuhtinen2494]

Yeah this is the main channel for me, only went to the "main" channel once, and left because no google maps

[@oelergodt]

​@@aapelihuhtinen2494 Wait what's his main channel?

[@Dylan-id1dx]

@@oelergodt he plays minecraft lol

[@KhAnubis]

Thanks for letting me edit your video, Toycat! Everyone else, what did you think of this? I‘m legitimately curious. -The editor

[@mrbrainbob5320]

Make more videos about Portland

[@uziTGC]

Very good! Hope you guys do it again, it certainly adds production value!

[@neilmoulang90]

It was really good

[@maybeh-letsplaysmore3697]

KhAnubis I really liked the editing! Idk if I like it better than the normal way though. I guess they’re just different.

[@EvanAviator]

I love you’re channel man! You did great editing.

[@DominoLarry]

Wait. No Google Maps with your face in a corner? Is this even a real Toycat video?

[@demetriosb5758]

“If you don’t know know Canada, I don’t necessarily blame you” ~Toycat 2019

[@marcus2494]

I'm Canadian and when he said that "I don't feel so good"

[@maclennanld]

yet Malta and Norway are places that are more important to know apparently, Malta

[@JeroenJA]

he was talking about Quebec, not Canada ;-) who doesn't know Canada.. but not knowing about a Quebec issue in Canada, that i can understand.

[@NotKnafo]

@ Funny but USA and Canada are not even the only countries in North America, and not even including the 50 states of USA

[@Danikar]

@ I think Tibet and Sichuan are reasonably well known. Though the latter is more known as a sauce than a province.

[@nirutivan9811]

An other referendum which got ignored: In 1919 81% of Vorarlbergs population voted to join Switzerland, but they stayed a part of Austria. To the Swiss part: We aren’t an EEA member. Those bilateral treaties we have today with the EU (those which replace the EEA), were accepted in an other vote in 2005. So it was a democratic decision to not join the EEA but to sign these bilateral treaties.

[@Baker0214]

From Toycat. "I dont like people who think think democracy should be set in stone." Finally you have shown your true self, I always knew you were a fellow monarchist. Toycat for King of all of Britian. Make Minecraft videos great again.

[@joshuawan7004]

Let the Queen decide! It's her country!

[@Volunteer-per-order_OSullivan]

Take back the realms, restore the empire.

[@e1123581321345589144]

@@Volunteer-per-order_OSullivan I don't know I have a feeling England would vote to leave that as well in a couple of decades.

[@Volunteer-per-order_OSullivan]

@@e1123581321345589144 No, this is too much patriotism. I demand at least some ant-British sentiment or I simply cannot stay.

[@seanedie1497]

You missed one out. In 1979 there was a referendum on Scottish devolution and it came up 51.62 for it and 48.38 against with a 64% turnout but since less than 40% of the overall electorate voted for it, that was considered not enough for a full majority and was ignored and not repeated until 1997

[@AzureRT456]

There should be a referendum sent to god if greenland should remain ice or green

[@Herr_U]

Interesting as always. Kinda sad that the cutoff was 1956 - a somehwat famous incident used to mock politicians in sweden is the 1955 referendum of whether to introduce right hand traffic. 82.9% voted "no - we want to keep driving in the left hand side" (participiation 53%), and with the level of honesty we all expect from politicians sweden has been driving on the right hand side ever since Sep-1967... (Also, the 1980 referendum in sweden on nuclear power is kind of interesting - the voters where given three options, all saying no to nuclear power (that is - no option to retain or expand nuclear). The three options has also been criticized for that they split the non-negative option into two (which - amusingly enough - ended up with that the winning option was one of keeping nuclear (but no expansion) and also make sure that they where owned by the state of municipalities (they all are owned by companies now). Basically that referendum is now used as an example of how to not do a referendum)

[@genoobtlp4424]

The swiss example technically wasn’t a referendum, it was an initiative that changed the constitution and it hadn’t been ignored, just not implemented as the initiators had hoped, because of political reasons. A swiss referendum actually is a way to veto a new law.

[@GoldenbanjoDJ]

Interesting. Article 50 and the Queen's signature makes the UK's 2016 one law though. So yeah.

[@fenbekus]

Lol you’ve used some stock footage of someone filling in the Polish tax form for your background 13:06

[@matthiascerebri3315]

In case of Switzerland, you are forgetting two very important things: Firstly, it is not just about the percentage, but also about the number of cantons, so regions. So in the first case of course this meant trouble. And in the second case, it was not just about Schengen, it was also about the other EU laws.

[@JoshuaHere]

I got an ad before this video that said: "The EU is there for you" . LMFAO

[@daanwillemsen223]

Me too 🇪🇺

[@machintrucGaming]

EU Propaganda...

[@hanskover]

@@machintrucGaming Yeah news! I Love Trump

[@JeroenJA]

why is that so funny? EU puts a lot of attention into defending stability and the garantee of rights of EU citizens.. this also means, not sacrificing Northern Ireland, and peace treaty negotiated just cause Uk politicians overblow the consequences of a backstop..

[@hanskover]

@@JeroenJA Pssst, facts aren't allowed in this comment section.

[@heronimousbrapson863]

It is perfectly reasonable for referenda to be re-held every so many years, as circumstances may change (although 3 years is probably too short an interval). After all, general elections are like referenda on the performance of the government in power, and whether a majority (or at least a plurality) wish that government to remain in power, or whether a change of governors is needed.

[@jokutyyppi6751]

I used to watch your minecraft videos years ago. Now when I've outgrown those videos, I found this channel and I'm your fan once again.

[@Serratus648]

@ibx2cat You do realize that the form seen at 13:00 is not a referendum form, but actually a Polish Personal Income Tax - 40 form for small business owners. Right?

[@ibx2cat]

Blame the editor haha

[@Trolligarch]

The British Constitution (yes we have one, it's just not written) has two main principles, one of which is parliamentary sovereignty. In simple English, Parliament has absolute power and can do whatever it wants as long as there is a simple majority (51%) in the Commons. Referendums under the British Constitution cannot be legally binding because Parliament is sovereign and it always has the final say.

[@L3A1N8]

Hence it was parliament which voted to allow the referendum and parliament which has voted to implement its result. What was the other principle of our constitution which you alluded to?

[@Trolligarch]

Lee Nicholson Yes, but they explicitly made it non-legally binding. If they _really_ wanted to, they can just ignore the referendum. The second principle, fyi, is rule of law.

[@L3A1N8]

@@Trolligarch They didn't explicitly make it non-binding. The way parliamentary sovereignty works makes any act of parliament non-binding against future parliaments. My point was that parliament has already enacted the results of the referendum and we will be leaving the EU on 29th March unless MPs decide to repeal legislation they already voted to enact. I believe this would be very damaging to democracy as most MPS were elected in Leave-voting constituencies.

[@Charlie-lj5by]

@@L3A1N8 referendums in the uk are explicitly non binding unless legislation is passed specifically to make them binding, like in the AV referendum

[@MrLeighman]

At the end of the day, parliament - sovereign or not, can use all the legalize it wants to pull the wool over our eyes but the British people are not stupid. If Parliament promises one thing and does another then by default Parliament loses the trust of the people. No trust, no sovereign parliament. "The emperor wears no clothes"!

[@mporvichova]

I have always known there was a vote whether or not should Czechoslovakia seperate in to two countries. What I didn't know until recently is that over 60% of people were against seperation but politicians went through with it anyways.

[@darkmage35]

As far as I know, referendums in the UK are always completely non binding. So technically the parliament can do whatever they want regardless of any referendum results.

[@L3A1N8]

That's why parliament had to vote on holding the referendum and then voted to implement its results. It would be very unwise of parliament to ignore the will of the people, although they have a constitutional ability to do so.

[@tjvanderyacht9806]

toycat! This is a super well-made video and I can tell there was a lot of work and research put into this. I watch all of your videos and this one just seemed to stand out in terms of overall quality of production. Nice!

[@DeclanMBrennan]

You never mentioned your closest neighbour. In two cases Ireland voted no in referenda on European treaties- Nice and Lisbon. In both cases after some tweaks and clarifications we got a chance to vote again on the revisions and voted yes both times.

[@uziTGC]

I expected you to speak of the Greek referendum of 2015 which was also ignored (thank god for that) :)

[@boasa]

Also ignored: Faroe Islands referendum to leave the Kingdom of Denmark. 51% voted to leave in 1946 but Denmark ignored it and to this day the Faroe Islands is still part of the Kingdom of Denmark.

[@RobertoBC]

The problem with referendums is that you have tow options and nothing in the middle, in real life there's almost never only tow options.

[@veselinboyadzhiev4724]

There was a referendum in Romania about abolishing their upper house and the people decided in favor. But then it was ignored. I do not know if it was good or bad but it happened.

[@J05H30H3]

You shouldn't have another vote just because it didn't go your way,

[@ibx2cat]

I Agree!

[@J05H30H3]

@@ibx2cat Let's be fair everything is going to be fine and everyone is freaking out over nothing...

[@ahl.56]

But you should if the first referendum's result was due to laws being broken and lying to the public.

[@astonm1990]

@@J05H30H3 Well, except the UK economy is going to take a huge hit. It might easily wipe out British car manufacturing. Think about Just In Time manufacturing also. The NHS is going to take a huge hit also since a big chunk of the NHS positions is filled by EU people. The decline in EU personell has been gigantic since the referendum. The UK joined the EU because its economy was doing bad by itself. Now 40 years later everything is going to be great?! But on the other hand. The UK never joined because they believed in the EU. They joined because they needed to. So, maybe its better for the EU that it got rid of the UK.

[@justaretardwithinternetacc2859]

@@ahl.56 politicians lie to the public all the time trying to get a greater grip on our lives

[@randomperson6988]

What’s the point of a referendum then? Why have them if you can just ignore them?

[@Dubliner-un9lw]

Someone forgot to mention the referendums in Ireland on signing the treaties of Nice and Lisbon. As the EU needed all member states to agree it was only the Irish electorate holding them back and sent them both back a year after the vote in each case with some minor changes and they were then ratified. This happened in Ireland only as these treaties amended An Bunreacht na hÉireann (Irish Constitution) which since the 1st Amendment to An Bunreacht every subsequent amendment can only be made by referendum. Might be a topic for a future toycat vid.

[@ibx2cat]

I've referenced it in other videos, to be fair

[@pitrk]

4:23 FYI this is Polish Personal Income Tax form number 40 (as of 2019 this form no longer exists).

[@TomMAXR]

Weren't there some irish refurendums ignored or redone?

[@organisten]

Let's talk about referendums that have been RERUN. Not have been RERAN [sic].

[@organisten]

@@nuntius1933 Non est Latina, sed lingua Anglica. It suffices to use the rules of English. If you want to use the word in Latin, then you use it according to the Latin Grammar. "Referenda" can be used (formally), but the norm is "referendums" in English. It is NOT pedantic saying that something must be "rerun". That is correct English. Writing it must be "reran" is not.

[@drastelne]

My problem with having a second referendum is that it's simply too soon. The vote was just under 3 years ago and haven't even left yet, but it took 40+ years for a re-run of the original membership referendum. Hence, I think we should have another vote in at least 10 years from now, otherwise it could potentially set a precedent in the UK where referendums can just easily be re-run and lead to an endless series of referenda.

[@ibx2cat]

what is the cut off point for you, friend? has 8 years been enough since the AV referendum, or should we wait 2 more?

[@GromDarkwater]

A refurendum should be acted upon before a second refurendum is called. Call your refurendum to rejoin once we have left

[@alex27826]

Rejecting the first referendum because you don't like the result is what is truly deplorable. It would mean that a referendum carries as much meaning as a poll. Sure, you can have another referendum on whether the UK should rejoin the EU, but not until the UK has actually left.

[@ネイアン-u1p]

10 years later ibxtoycat uk prime minister

[@kennkoala]

Did you have some sort of time constraint? Could barely understand one word in eight.

[@maxfriis]

So happy that you din't cite the danish second referendum as an example of the title of the video. Guess the video is well researched.

[@ABritishGamer1]

I don't think the issue is so much there is a second referendum on the UK staying in the EU it's the fact its so soon after the first. Before it has even been implemented. Whereas when Quebec and others have had second referendums it has been years or decades later.

[@MidwestArtMan]

I approve of the editing. And the puppy was very cute.

[@tobuslieven]

So if we have another referendum, and remain wins, you'll be all for another referendum another year after that? Or if remain loses a second referendum, then you'll be like, "Best of five?" People voted already, it might not be ideal, but we really should just get on with it now. It will be okay.

[@Wilbtube]

How about the French and Dutch referenda on the European constitution (2005)? Both got resounding majorities of HELL NO, and both were completely ignored.

[@ionut-claudiuvasilescu8299]

So if you don't like somebody from Bruxelles you can't vote against him at the next election.

[@MlemDotaPersonal]

The big issue with a second referendum over whether to leave or remain isn't the potential result in and of itself, it's the inevitable escalation of tensions that would come regardless of the result. If we vote to remain, leavers will see it as the political establishment abdicating their responsibilities and spitting in their face after they were given a result they didn't like. A section of them will resort to violence because they have been ignored for 40 years in our political system. If we vote to leave again, you could expect to see an increase in black bloc protesting and property damage from the remainer part of the left because they will see it as 'fascism has truly taken over'. So either way a second referendum leads to unnecessary violence when a decision to resolve a dispute has already been made.

[@Pikachu0071000CS]

Tbh I feel like the Maltese referendum being ignored was also kinda cause it had a 59% turnout rate so there was no majority FOR joining despite what the results suggested

[@mattbenz99]

The Quebec referendums weren't as clear cut as you make it sound. The first referendum wasn't officially about independence, it was about allowing the government to discuss the topic. The second referendum was the one on independence.

[@M77Vidal]

I didn't check all the comments but there's lots of other ignored referendums... just out of my head I think of the 1998 Nevis Independence Referendum (62% in favour) and the 1933 Western Australia Independence Referendum (66% in favour) were also entirely ignored. As was the 2015 Bonaire Referendum in which 66% of voters opposed the current status of Bonaire as directly linked to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

[@isaibro]

I personally prefer just looking at you in the corner as you switch to different tabs haha

[@ibx2cat]

maybe a combination of both? :)

[@BCDeshiG]

Late upload why?

[@ndhonek]

Its 7:30

[@desanipt]

@@ndhonek It's 1:30 in the morning in the UK

[@arianam9977]

@@ndhonek In Europe it's the middle of the night ;D

[@jasonfischer8946]

I think that Great Britian is experiencing buyers remorse. The choice looked so good on the shelf, it was new and exciting. Now that it's sitting on the mantle, it doesn't look so good.

[@SilvanaDil]

The British politicians did not work very hard on Brexit negotiations, and the EU had little incentive to come up with a good deal. It would be unseemly to re-run a referendum after only a couple years. MPs should tweak May's deal (if possible) and choose between it and a "no deal" Brexit.

[@ibx2cat]

how would you/they work harder? Do you really think they sabotaged negotiations to make leaving the EU worse? The EU was very public about their red lines

[@SilvanaDil]

@@ibx2cat - Hardly anybody was talking about, e.g., the Northern Ireland issues, back in 2016, even into 2017. Hardly anyone expected the referendum to pass; no one prepared anything.

[@SilvanaDil]

@@ibx2cat - True, the EU was being honest with the UK; basically: "you're in or you're out, and if we can inflict some extra pain to deter others, we will."

[@astonm1990]

@@ibx2cat The EU has red lines and the UK had even more red lines. This was the only deal possible. One of the bigger issues red lines is off course Northern Ireland. Without it, everything would have been easier.

[@guillermomendoza1398]

Great Video! I have another example if you want to do a 2nd part. The 2016 Bolivian constitutional referendum, look it on wikipedia. The proposed constitutional amendments would have allowed the president and vice president to run for a third consecutive term, the referendum was voted down by a 51.3% majority but they are running for office again anyways :/

[@PeterLiuIsBeast]

Khanubis? Or however it is spelled?

[@KhAnubis]

PeterLiuIsBeast The A is capitalized, but yep.

[@daithimcbuan5235]

Of course, after the 1994 EU referendum in Norway was defeated, the then Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, signed up for Norway to join the EEA... without a referendum. That's another example of a referendum being somewhat ignored. Technically Norway is still not an EU member, but as an EEA member, they are at least half EU. The literal interpretation of the referendum was honoured, though the spirit of the referendum was ignored.

[@ibx2cat]

Norway's EU deal is really great in my opinion, they don't sign up to fishing, farming and other areas, and can sign their own trade deals

[@Ed-ob4wh]

Really enjoyed this video!!!

[@baskoning9896]

When the dutch people voted twice against the EUSSR via two referenda, the government simply ABOLISHED REFERENDA.

[@isunlloaoll]

Imagine having referendum after referendum after referendum, and no one will agree with anyone. Nothing will get done. Endless talks.

[@e1123581321345589144]

12:14 "checks and balances". Yep, nailed it! Especially checks

[@Dreju78]

No option has a majority? Single transferable vote.

[@charliestuart9374]

Forgot the editor's link

[@ibx2cat]

Adding it now!

[@fnamelname9077]

These are apples to oranges comparisons. Referenda are not moral articles. - they are legal constructs. A body of law must define what happens when a motion or action of each (and every) kind recognized by that body, fails. Whether or not any of those examples were "good" or "bad" depends on basically two things. A, when they acted differently, were they following the law? And B, are the laws governing the implementation of referenda good laws? Any other perspective is missing the point, I think.

[@leehallam9365]

It rather depends on the legitimacy of the referendum. Switzerland has an entirely different system to us so it's not really relevant to us, but the others are. The Malteese referendum had real problems, voters were allowed to bring a friend to "help" them vote, so It wasn't secret and it was boycotted by the main opposition. That is the first point referendums only work if both sides agree that they are the right way to decide. In 2016 the referendum was voted through by all but a handful of MPs. Both Quebec referendums were organised by the Provincial government without the support of the National Parliament, or Government, who were clear they would not implement the results. You have to consider if the Mayor of London organised a poll without Parliament's approval and Londoners voted for independence from the rest of the UK, would Parliament have accepted it's result? They would not. In 2016 it was made clear that we would decide and parliament would carry out our decision. But that hasn't yet happened, once it has and we have left it is perfectly right that people could campaign for us to rejoin, but the campaign for a referendum to leave started in the 1990s and took 25 years, succeeding in getting a vote more than 40 years after the last one. As for the strength of the argument standing up a second time, you are right, but I actually do think the result would be the same, the polling predicted Remain well ahead before the referendum was called, that's why Cameron was confident of calling it. It would be far more bitter thsn the last one, and a great deal of time and money would have been wasted on a demand that isn't based on a belief that 2 years on things have changed, the second vote campaign started straight after the referendum.

[@TheMarioManiac]

Just right now with the Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon wanting another Indy ref because it didn’t go her way.

[@Paul-zk2tn]

Or because most of the "benefits" of the UK and promise we were made are now broken or null. The SNP, a pro indy party, have since won (retained) a majority in both the Scottish and national parliaments. As someone who abhors nationalism and voted remain (in both referendums) its clear the SNP have every right and every mandate to demand a second indy ref.

[@valentinmitterbauer4196]

The thing is this: There was a change A small fantasy example: 'We asked the people if they want to be part of that faction- they said yes' 'We now plan to join said faction' 'What's that? The faction started to shift its interest and socio- economic course? Well shit, guess we can't ask the people again, as they said 'yes' last time'

[@Quickshot0]

I believe the SNPs position is indeed basically that during the independence referendum the UK said it wouldn't be leaving the EU. And thus after it suddenly changing its mind on it, this constitutes a major change in policy and changes the situation for them and Scotland in a large way, as well as effectively breaking an important promise for the vote. Whether that's an entirely fair assessment or not I guess would depend on the details and so, which I'm no expert on. But the proposed position at least at first glance doesn't seem entirely unreasonable.

[@NicolasOliva17]

Well... you make a video of referendums being ignored and you ignore one of the most recent ones which is the Bolivian referendum which voted against the 4th re-election of the actual president, which is actually ignored and was even abolished by the government under a presidential orden

[@nikita424]

And what about the referendum for USSR disintegration, when most people voted for keeping the USSR?

[@Zoito-99]

Norway style deal won't necessarily be a better deal. The UK will lose its veto power in the European Council and all MEPs and it will still follow the majority of the rules and regulations made by the EU. The only solution for the Northern Irish border right now is a customs union.

[@bena6575]

it seems you forgot to link the editor in description?

[@roberthudson3386]

I voted Remain. But if it's possible to get a deal that is genuinely supported by a majority in Conservative AND Labour parties, and maybe some other parties, I can accept that. The problem at the moment is firstly that the Leave campaign did not clearly define what Brexit was, and to the extent they did, they argued for things that couldn't be delivered. For example, claiming we would not pay a divorce bill, claiming we could retain the benefits of the single market and customs union without the downsides, claiming there would be a £350m per week Brexit dividend, claiming that a trade deal with the EU would easy. Secondly, without a majority in Parliament the obvious thing for the PM would have been to try to reach out to Labour. Instead, she is trying to get Brexit through with just the votes of the Tories, who are themselves divided, although I suspect the hardline Brexiteers will win out in the end. That is not a sensible way to get through something as big as Brexit. It leaves huge numbers of people unable to accept the outcome, including some who voted Leave, meaning that the issue will not be settled and will continue to loom over British politics for years to come. I suspect we will either leave with no deal or the Chequers deal will get through in some form, with perhaps a small minority of Labour MPs being basically bribed into voting for it (and swiftly being deselected for their treachery). Brexit will not satisfy many of those who voted Leave, and those who voted Remain will feel utterly sold out. It's a bleak future in Britain.

[@lukedetering4490]

I have an idea: You should do Qna Saturday from this channel, and see how different it would be

[@westsaxon6107]

The thing is if there were another referendum held before the result of the first one was implemented, a lot of the poorer leave voters especially those in northern England will be demoralised feel as if their vote doesn't matter and so simply wont bother. Just like how the referendums in Ireland and Denmark over accepting the Treaty of Lisbon failed initially but succeeded on the second vote because those who voted against it at the last referendum got the message that the government wasn't going to accept a no result so they didn't bother voting. If there is a second brexit vote held before we have left the EU mark my words if it wins, it'll win on a significantly lower turnout in stronghold leave areas

[@carlb1056]

On the subject of the Maltese referendum. Your electing to ignore facts.. it was ignored for a reason.. The Yes vote carried the day, but the total of those voting against, those abstaining or invalidating their vote, the deceased, and the 'non-voters' exceeded the yes vote by almost 10 per cent.

[@ibx2cat]

this is true of almost* any referendum ever.

[@skruttigaming]

You didn't mension the swedish referendum on driving on the right or left. Left won we drive on the right.

[@EllaGP22]

I saw an ad from the EU on this video.

[@AECH_CH]

The part about Switzerland realy has major research errors. - We arn't in the EU or EEA, we have got bilateral agreements with the EU... Even though I'd prefere to be in the EEA, those agreements arn't a "copy" of an EEA membership agreement. Those are different. - Initiatives in Switzerland work in a very specific way. The imigration initiative wanted to cap the migration and give privileges to swiss residents when applying for a job. But the comitee loses the power over the Initiative after the Referendum. The parliament has to decide how to make the Initiative into laws and constitution. We havn't got a peoples dictature, power is split here. Also constitution changes always have to go through a referendum and parliament or government laws can also be challenged by a referendum There are even Swiss who are complainimg about the Things you said, but research shows how this really works. If they want to change it, then we'd need a referendum ^^. EDIT: Referendums basen on "godwill" of the government arn't very democratic. There needs to be clear rules, when a referendum must be called, where it mustn't and where it is optional. Just making noise to get reelected is very undemocratic

[@OB-806]

A 2nd Brexit referendum is fine. After we’ve implemented the 1st. Same as how we let the winning party form a Government before we start calling for a snap GE.

[@ibx2cat]

I don't think a second referendum ever makes particular sense - but the previous referendum has been implementing for 2 years+ now

[@OB-806]

Implementing rather than implemented. It's the difference between the period during which the largest party finds a coalition partner for a Government, and the period once that Government has sat in which a new election can be called. It's a longer period, sure, with more detailed implementation. But until the UK has left the EU, we haven't implemented the thing people voted for. If the question was "should the UK attempt to negotiate a leaving deal with the EU" then you could argue, as negotiations have concluded, that we had implemented and could now judge again. But we only voted Leave. The question was left deliberately vague by the same people now calling for a People's Vote, because they figured it would help them in the referendum. And so, in keeping with the process of democracy, we should Leave, and at that point if there is majority will for a 2nd referendum, that's cool. I'd also accept a referendum on the deal/the future relationship, but it couldn't include Remain or it would again open the door to disputing results before they've been implemented. @@ibx2cat

[@NathanPortelli19]

Glad you included the Malta referendum. I'm Maltese :)

[@KuraIthys]

Small majorities can be very dubious for a major vote, because while a tiny group dictates the outcome, everyone has to live with the consequences. It's worse when the overall voter turnout is low. The Brexit vote for instance 'won' with less than 30% of people actually saying they were FOR brexit. That's more than the ones that said they were against it, but given the nature of the question, interpreting that the 40+% who said nothing were also for it, or indifferent, is a very dangerous game to play. Plus, as with all referendums, misinformation can seriously skew the result. Or... The referendum can be tampered with by the people in charge, by messing with the phrasing of the question. Such as the Howard years 'republic' referendum in Australia which phrased things in a way that tacked on several other ideas to the question that very few people, even those who were pro-republic, agreed with. Framing can also be important. If I tell you 83% of people who take this drug will live, you'll likely have quite a different reaction to me telling you 17% of people who take this drug will die. And yet, objectively, both statements are the same. There's cognitive biases at work that influence what people choose based on how it's worded, and many other psychological pitfalls that are easy to manipulate, both deliberately and unintentionally. Then there's the basic question I sort of asked at the start. Is 'majority rules' actually fair? Especially if that 'majority' is basically defined as 50.1% (meaning in a lot of cases the number for and against something were almost identical), or worse, those that didn't vote at all are treated as not counting. In which case the 'majority' can often actually be a minority. In some contexts, this can be a very small minority too. Like 20% or less, yet due to quirks of the system, that can be regarded as a 'majority' some of the time. All well and good sometimes, but it can create a real mess when the consequences are widespread and far reaching. As it is, majority rules is already fundamentally unfair towards minorities where niche topics are involved that only really have meaning to those minorities, yet the uninterested and uninformed masses have the power to decide how these topics are dealt with, and the minority who it affects, by virtue of being a minority, effectively never have a say in the matter... Democracy has a lot to answer for sometimes...

[@viper8177]

I'm all for another referendum for the UK. They can have their third referendum in 41 years time which is the same period of time we had to wait to get the second one in 2016. It is not feasible to have a referendum on joining or leaving a big supranational controlling entity like the EU and all it entails on a frequent basis. These are once in a generation votes.

[@ibx2cat]

I think that's a fair response actually, but the problem is that the losing side never sees it as once in a generation, only the winning side (see: scotland)

[@InvadersDie]

Editor is using a mac! He must be hollywood

[@omegastorm2978]

I like the style of this video.

[@ΚωνσταντίνοςΤζουρμανας-χ4γ]

you forget the "marvelous" referendum from the greek government. But you know what all referendum that you mention had a real question in the other hand was just for our government to have fun and showing its "democratic" nature

[@cowscrazy]

Referendums are ok. But you should need at least 60% of the vote if your going to make any life / world changing choices. Such a small majority shouldn't change how the whole world works.

[@johnlabus7359]

This is very interesting. Thanks.

[@abirneji]

wait the minecraft channel guy? well now I've seen it all

[@dokuro_69]

13:14 that's a Polish tax return paper not a referendum xD

[@josephweaver8545]

Did you get an editor?

[@metzler1136]

You start to talk in a nearly normal speed!

[@Kieran84ire]

Zero mention of the two EU referendums Ireland had to vote on a second time? Would have been much more relevant. We had to vote again and again until the EU got the result it wanted, that's not democracy. Referendums are an exercise to change laws and constitutions and should be respected and fully binding in legality and those taking part and those watching need to be fully cognisant of this.

[@ProfessorEGadd]

Ireland secured several concessions to the Lisbon Treaty between those two votes. Do you think those are irrelevant?

[@Kieran84ire]

@@ProfessorEGadd Those concessions were and are meaningless - they aren't actual additional protocols to the treaty, because that would have meant altering the treaty and having all the other EU countries vote again, when most countries whose populations had a chance to vote said No (France, Netherlands). It was thus altered to require only parliamentary approval. The real reason Ireland voted Yes was fear of being kicked out of the EU or being left behind. We already have PESCO which is a platform for common defence, see how easily the guarantees are sidestepped. How many times has EU and top European politicians now called for an EU army?

[@FolgoreCZ]

Yeah. Two years of scaring people about how terrible the life would be after brexit, without any evidence, but we are bad for not wanting another referendum. You are right to have your political opinion, you are right to present it publicly, but don't pretend that it's just an impartial fact.

[@abrunosON]

Since the people voted what was decided must be implemented and then work to get back in otherwise the decision not being respected constitutes a democratic crisis.

[@elaforestis]

You forgot the 2015 Greek referendum

[@chrisf1604]

The plural of referendum is referenda...

[@jamesmawdsley7306]

Nice shot of the 3 graces. 👍

[@allanlewin2300]

Yes, but why? He was talking about Switzerland not Liverpool ...... :-(

[@jamesmawdsley7306]

@@allanlewin2300 I don't know

[@SrSam16]

What about USSR referendum. Completely ignored

[@haddockman30]

You forgot all the Irish referendums that were rerun until the right answer was obtained.

[@3d1e00]

Simple fix to Brexit, just join the EEA. That's what the referendum said, you can't have another vote.

[@htoner235]

Referendum based on lies and giving people wrong impressions I vote leave last time but I wish I had the opportunity to vote again for Remain. I figure a lot of other people do to

[@BigAlCapwn]

Hmm, the problem here is the "people's vote" which is what you seem to be defending here isn't a simple re-check on the population's opinion, it is a clear attempt to overturn the result of a previous referendum before the outcome of the first one can even be implemented. No Brexiteers I know of are saying we can never have another referendum on the subject of EU membership ever again, for all time. But since the 1975 EEC ref, there have been over 40 years and numerous new treaties which fundamentally changed the "deal" the UK public in the 70s chose to support with no re-check of public opinion, not a measly 2.5 years. Also the Remainer People's Vote argument you trumpet which is basically "if you're so confident you are on the right side of public opinion then why are you scared of doing it again?" is silly, it's like the losing manager of the FA Cup final saying to the winning manager "if you're so confident your team is better than ours let's play again before your victory parade and if we win this time we get the cup [and will not be offering a third match either...unless they lose that as well in case it will be best out of five]".

[@ibx2cat]

My point wasn't a "remainer argument" it was the point that people genuinely do not think there is current public support for their proposals. Which means you need to be against direct democracy going forwards, not for it. I voted leave but would accept that if a party was voted in on the basis of re-running a referendum then it would be okay to do so, everyone I speak to seems to answer that question along what they'd like - which is hypocritical

[@BigAlCapwn]

@@ibx2cat No sure about your quotation marks there as I didn't say that. I said the "Remainer People's Vote argument..." which is correct as that is one of their arguments for their ill-named second (or third, depending whether you count '75 as the first) referendum. (i.e people have changed their minds). The problem with that is you can't know that until you actually re-run the vote. Polls are fun to look at but just 2 days before the 2016 referendum they had Remain down for a 10 point margin victory (55 vs 45) so aren't entirely accurate. You don't have to be for direct democracy or against, it's not that black and white.

[@thrashes6208]

So here is the thing, the people responsible for brexit negotiations were mostly against brexit to begin with so they have a vested interest in making negotiations go badly. I do however think that a second referendum should not happen and that a no deal brexit is clearly the best thing to do if they cannot make any deal (simply because the deal would be so bloated and stupid getting insight from every sight and no one would be happy). I do however think that a second referendum would win by a larger margin because people see how stupid things have been going and they see it as a betrayal. Someone that was against brexit in 2015 could say that the nation has already decided and that they should obviously leave and therefore vote to leave even if they do not really believe that is the best option. They will then probably ignore the referendum again which the EU will use to hurt the UK even more, the EU has a vested interest in making brexit as hard on the UK as possible to discourage other pro leave parties across europe. That is just how empires work and make no mistake, the EU is an attempt to make a United States of Europe and it is clearly not working especially as we have seen in recent months. Its a burning ship so i cannot imagine staying on it till the end.

[@highlandsprings5752]

Only blood can pay for Liberty