while the brexit referendum was advisory and non-binding, it was treated as a serious and binding one by everyone involved. there were campaigns and ads from both sides, there were debates in which high profile politicians participated, and so on.

I agree, however, that such a drastic step should requires a 60 or 67% majority. while I personally support the brexit and think the UK will be better off from it in the long run, basing such a monumental decision on a narrow 52:48 majority is just stupid.

Brexit was an advisory referendum, legally not binding, but was made binding through political promises made. The problem with these type of advisory referenda, is that; every side will want to take their voters as serious and involved as possible, increasing their chances to vote, giving them a higher expectation of the value of their vote. Afterwards it's politically beneficial to act upon the results, gaining votes for the next election (or better: keeping your voters after throwing their votes in the bin), while neglecting results might be the best thing to do, from a political "expert" perspective.
/e: This is making advisatory referenda binding for the wrong reasons, imo a direct deciding referendum needs more than... let's say 60% of the votes to make it happen. /e: agreeing with BlackX, there.



The Bolkenstein prediction was somewhat nice as a side subject on the data. Perhaps to be used for an argument in a different topic.

This post was edited by Knoppie on Oct 22 2018 09:27am

I mean Google shooting Chicago any day of the week. This doesn't even seem bad in comparison.

This post was edited by SBD on Oct 24 2018 12:25pm

I didnt have to read any further than "north london".

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 24 2018 12:39pm

meanwhile, in europe:

Outrage across Italy after a 16 year old girl in Rome is drugged, gang-raped and murdered by a group of two senegalese and one nigerian who were in the country illegally:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/italy-arrest-3-in-teens-slaying-fueling-immigration-debate/2018/10/25/45cb0a36-d85f-11e8-8384-bcc5492fef49_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.de0ccd4ea869

Thoughts and prayers.

Difference is: this case could have been prevented by simply applying the (immigration) law(s). By contrast, the solution to school shootings which you and fellow liberals propose would infringe on institutionally guaranteed rights.

In slightly different terms: in the italian case, the laws are not the problem, it's their lacking enforcement. The gun violence problem in the U.S., by contrast, is probably an issue with questionable, outdated laws. Which obviously is a lot harder to tackle than just enforcing applicable law.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 26 2018 11:49pm

Gun laws actually lack enforcement. Often required background checks don't come back within the time limit (I've heard 48 hours in some cases) and it defaults to selling the gun.

Still, there are some basic things we can do that are overwhelmingly supported by NRA members, like national background checks.