Honest question Irisado. Are you ok after this vote? I know how much the EU means to you so this can't be easy.
Of all the questions raised in this topic, this is the only one I'm going to say is best left unanswered. Thank you for your concern though, I appreciate it
.
1. The public itself by collecting signatures.
2. They would be far less regular then you might think. How often does switzerland run referenda? And many of those are concerning local topics, so usually only people living at that place are even allowed to vote. Nation wide referendas dont happen that often, judging by the experience of countries who actually run them. Also running a campaign to collect said signatures would also be expensive, so only topics that really concern a lot of people would be put forward. Also internet solution. But i am starting to repeat myself.
3. The person or organization that runs the campaign.
4. Doubt that this would be a factor, we are not talking about dozens referendas a year after all.
5. Uhm by the guys who make and pass the laws (legislation) id suppose? Or would you like every referendum to have its own threshold? That would be highly impractical. You could argue about several thresholds, like changes to the constitution maybe needing 75% or so, while for other topics a simple minority is enough.
6. No, making a vote, especially for a referendum, compulsery kinda defeats its point. Also kinda curious, why you ask that one, since i cant think of any public vote that is actually compulsery.
1. Who decides which members of the public are authorised to do this? How many groups would there be? What about existing campaign groups that lobby parliament on behalf of the citizens? What would happen to them? What about charitable organisations? I just don't think that what you're proposing is realistic.
2. What about those who have no internet access? They would be excluded from internet led initiatives. Also, comparing to Switzerland doesn't get us very far. Its population is small and its an outlier country, which does not fully engage in many international institutions. Other EU states are much more interconnected and are much more involved in global affairs on one side of an argument or another. They cannot, therefore, open up issues to referenda like the Swiss can.
3. Again though, who decides which person or organisation should run it? There needs to be oversight.
4. We agree to differ in that case.
5. Too confusing. Most voters would find all that very complex. You'd need one flat threshold in my opinion. It would also need to be very high, so at least 75%. You also then run the risk of paralysis, as that sort of turnout for elections or referenda is very hard to obtain in European countries, and that would lead to referenda failing to pass on the turnout threshold issue, but lowering it would reduce democratic legitimacy, so I see no effective way of making this work.
6. It is a legal requirement to vote in Australia. I'd have to check whether any other countries have that law. I was asking because making it compulsory is probably the only way to solve the democratic legitimacy problem I outlined in my response to point five.
Thats true, but for starters, the EU agreed to the UKs special status in the first place. So they can hardly hold it against them now. Also i have been working the last 5 years on construction projects and facility management. One important lesson i have learned is, that its very important to stay on good terms with people you might need later on again, even if you dont like them. Pissing people off might give you a moments satisfaction but can potentially cause you a lot of trouble and unnecessary work later on (though there are situations where this is neccessary). In other words, id have preffered a more constructive and grown up reaction from the EU.
I'd have preferred a more grown up and honest approach from Vote Leave, but we didn't get that. The UK has responded to too many EU initiatives in a hostile manner down the years, partly because of domestic pressure from the public, but also partly because of a misplaced nostalgia for the days of the the British Empire and a lost global influence since the Suez Crisis. You can argue that two wrongs don't make a right, however, the important thing to remember is that people get back what they give out and this applies to member states too.
A lot of damage was done by the Thatcher approach to negotiating at the EU in the 1980s. She got what she wanted, but irritated a lot of others in the process. That friction has never really gone away. Blair did mend a lot of bridges, only to burn most of them again over Iraq. The UK has always been half in and half out for many of the core EU member states, yet has wanted special treatment, and this wanting to have its cake and eat it approach has generated a lot of resentment.
For what it's worth once some of the pain and sadness has died down a little, I think that you'll hear far less acrimonious statements in public, but the tension will never disappear. The EU will try to maintain cordial relations with the UK and vice-versa, and, over time, this cordiality will probably be established. However, there will never be the same level of warmth that is extended to members of the EU, and those of us who never wanted the UK to be in such a situation will be the ones who will feel the effects of that.
I recalled it from a newspaper article i can no longer find, but i might be wrong on that one. There is an article however, where Jean Claude Juncker states in an interview that "Der Deserteur wird nicht mit offenen Armen empfangen. Das steht für die Haltung der Kommission ebenso wie für die Einstellung anderer Regierungen" (the deserteur wont be received with open arms. This reflects the position of the commission and the positions of the other governments). This was actually shortly before the vote and i doubt that it was a helpfull remark. The UK didnt desert (which is an illegal act that can get you killed), they are using an legal option that is open for every country should they chose so.
There is also this remark by the chairman of the foreign commision in the Europaparlament Elmar Brok, who said "Das war eine Fehlentscheidung, für die bitter bezahlt werden muss" (This was a wrong decision, for which has to be dearly paid).
Though i just read, that the UK solution to the referendum seems to be to postpone the Brexit until further notice. Now this i can see pissing the EU off.
I cannot comment on those articles, other than to say that in the UK media, much of which is very hostile to the EU institutions, I have yet to hear anything like this being quoted. Juncker's statement to the media as a whole was just factual and to the point. There was no emotion there.
Elmar Brok has been critical, but I seem to remember that this before the referendum not after it, so that would put a different contextual meaning on what he was saying.
There is a move to delay activating article 50 over here. The stated reason is unclear, but the underlying reason is that Brexit is totally unprepared and has nothing in place, and with Cameron having announced his resignation, he's not going to be interested in conducting the negotiation, so it's very unclear what is going to happen between now and October (when the new Conservative leader and de facto Prime Minister is chosen). The EU and its member states will see this, understandably, as yet another instance where it is being made to wait over what it's going to do by the British being awkward, so it will not go down very well.