Read on Twitter
On democracy: Remember that in 1979, Scots voted 51.6% in favour of devolution — but didn& #39;t get it (then) and the Scotland Act was repealed.
Why?
1/12
Why?
1/12
Because the turnout was too low. For such a big and irreversible change, which could happen at any time, we needed 40% of the electorate to turn up and vote in favour — not just to stay at home because they& #39;re OK with the status quo, and not bother to engage.
2/12
2/12
That is the democratic precedent in this country.
So, why didn& #39;t the 2016 vote have that same threshold?
3/12
So, why didn& #39;t the 2016 vote have that same threshold?
3/12
Well, Parliament explicitly discussed it, and other safety checks on electoral fraud or requiring a ⅔ supermajority.
But decided that they didn& #39;t need to predict all the pitfalls in advance because MPs themselves were the safeguard — because the referendum was advisory.
4/12
But decided that they didn& #39;t need to predict all the pitfalls in advance because MPs themselves were the safeguard — because the referendum was advisory.
4/12
So when people say the referendum was advisory and MPs aren& #39;t bound to implement the result, that isn& #39;t just weasel words.
If it& #39;d been binding, it would& #39;ve had extra conditions which it would have failed, like the Scottish 1979 vote.
It would have been behind us long ago.
5/12
If it& #39;d been binding, it would& #39;ve had extra conditions which it would have failed, like the Scottish 1979 vote.
It would have been behind us long ago.
5/12
Don& #39;t let people lie to you that "democracy is at stake", and that ignoring the result would set a bad precedent.
It would be entirely in line with precedent, and also with the letter of the law and the spirit of our representative democracy.
6/12
It would be entirely in line with precedent, and also with the letter of the law and the spirit of our representative democracy.
6/12
And in fact, the result was honoured at the time anyway. MPs didn& #39;t have to, but they chose to trigger Article 50 and negotiate our departure from the EU.
7/12
7/12
But you don& #39;t send a negotiator in with a blank piece of paper, signed and postdated three years. It is absolutely right and proper that they come back to us with what they& #39;ve negotiated, for us to approve (or reject) it.
8/12
8/12
The result of the referendum HAS been respected, despite the fact that they didn& #39;t need to. Now in 2019 we have the right to choose what to do next; whether to proceed. There is no sense in claiming that the 2016 result binds MPs& #39; choices now; it didn& #39;t even bind them then.
9/12
9/12
Remember, we are a sovereign nation and we can leave the EU at any time we want to.
The Scots waited a little bit longer, came back with a better plan that actually had enough public support, and got their devolution.
10/12
The Scots waited a little bit longer, came back with a better plan that actually had enough public support, and got their devolution.
10/12
Even if it makes sense to leave the EU, it doesn& #39;t need to be now, after the government have spent three years incompetently frittering away the negotiating time without a plan, even coming up with ideas like the backstop, agreeing to them, then going back on their word.
11/12
11/12
Much better to call it off for now and try again with an actual plan, in a few years time.
And there is certainly no "democratic" reason not to do just that.
12/12
And there is certainly no "democratic" reason not to do just that.
12/12
