John Simpson’s two thirds idea is half-baked
The veteran BBC broadcaster suggests a new supermajority rule - but has he thought it through?
Yesterday, the BBC’s John Simpson relieved himself of a tweet:
Our problem with Brexit isn’t that a group of sullen Remainers are blocking the will of the people; it’s that we are divided almost exactly 50-50 over it. Organisations tend to require a 2/3rds majority to change their rules. Surely our nation should have done the same?
— John Simpson (@JohnSimpsonNews) October 21, 2019
Like what you’re reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email
Already registered? Sign in
OK, let’s think this one through. First of all, what does he mean by a change to the rules? Presumably not just any change to any law or regulation. It would have to be something big and more-or-less permanent. A second referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU would certainly count. But what would be the change to which the two-thirds threshold applied to? Would the super-majority be required to over-turn the result of the first referendum or would it be to approve the deal to take Britain out of the UK? That decision, whether taken by the Government, Parliament or our judicial masters, would most likely pre-determine the outcome of the referendum.
Does John Simpson also propose that his idea apply to any future referendum on Scottish independence? What if 65% of Scots vote to breakaway, thus narrowly missing the two-thirds threshold? How does he think that might work out?
Another scenario: the blocking tactics succeed and Brexit is somehow cancelled. The EU continues down the path to integration – requiring new treaties at least as significant as Maastricht or Lisbon. Does Simpson think that these rule changes should be subject to a two-thirds referendum, not only in Britain, but all the other member states? If so, how does he envisage any European treaty being approved ever again?
Also, should a two-thirds rule apply to significant legislation in Parliament – or is it just a simple majority of us mere voters that isn’t good enough? If voters are allowed to elect dominant governments that enact multiple major reforms as in 1945, 1979 or 1997 why can’t we be trusted when it comes to referenda?
Now that BBC journalists share their opinions with us and not just the news, perhaps they could explain them more fully.
Join the discussion
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.Subscribe