Brexit Encore

[degrub]

"
As an aside, I'm curious about mobility in the US. Is it an easy thing to cross state lines from a health care point of view in a country with no universal health coverage? Are there insurance penalties when doing that? I remember hearing a talk by Republican (but anti-Trump) David Frum who said that the health care limitation was a real roadblock for many people who would otherwise like to migrate to different areas of the US for jobs, but he didn't go into detail so I don't know how that plays out. Does it mean, in general, that you have to cancel one policy and try to buy for another in the new state? Knowing the insurance business, I can see where they would use this as an opportunity.
"
yes, it is an issue and it depends on the policy purchased. Many approaches restrict you to coverage within their network of doctors and facilities for full benefits. Many times you will be "out of network" and the benefits are reduced or eliminated. Some don't restrict the doctors, but limit the geographic area for coverage.  The experience i have had with my wife's policy is that if it is a true medical emergency, then they will cover as if within your normal area/doctors. If not an "emergency" by their definition, then minimal coverage if any.

When you relocate, you determine a new "home area" and look for doctors that are part of the network if the coverage is available in that state. If not, then you have to get a new policy. If you are lucky, the employer already has provisions based on their being physically located in the area. If not, well, there is the ACA act insurance based policies and all of it's issues as a backstop. There is a lot more effort placed on the consumer in the US, likely to our detriment as many do not pay attention or have the inclination.

[Chris Kern]

As an aside, I'm curious about mobility in the US. Is it an easy thing to cross state lines from a health care point of view in a country with no universal health coverage? Are there insurance penalties when doing that? I remember hearing a talk by Republican (but anti-Trump) David Frum who said that the health care limitation was a real roadblock for many people who would otherwise like to migrate to different areas of the US for jobs, but he didn't go into detail so I don't know how that plays out. Does it mean, in general, that you have to cancel one policy and try to buy for another in the new state? Knowing the insurance business, I can see where they would use this as an opportunity.

There's no single, simple answer to that question.

About half the population gets medical insurance through employer-sponsored group plans.  (Some employers offer a choice of plans.  Most contribute part of the premiums; a few cover the entire cost of medical insurance.)  If you relocate to another state while working for the same employer, you generally keep the same insurance, although since insurance companies are regulated by the state governments it is possible that the premiums and, in some cases, the details of the coverage may change.  If you relocate to another state and change employers, and the new employer offers an insurance plan, you will need to change to that employer's plan.

About a fifth of the population is covered by Medicaid, a federally funded program to provide medical insurance for the poor which is administered by the state governments.  Medicaid benefits vary from state to state.

Approximately 15 percent of the population is covered by Medicare, a federally funded and administered program to provide medical insurance for the elderly.  There are also federally funded and administered nationwide medical programs for federal government employees and retirees and for military veterans.

People without employer-sponsored or federally funded medical insurance need to acquire insurance, if they can, independently.  The federal Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") provides marketplaces in each state where insurance companies with policies that meet specified coverage requirements can offer medical insurance to them, or they can try to acquire it on their own.  Either way, the cost can be substantial or—for those who for one reason or another do not use the ACA marketplaces—the coverage minimal.  The federal government subsidizes the cost of insurance purchased through the ACA marketplaces for people below a certain income threshold who do not qualify for Medicaid.

About a tenth of the population is uninsured.  Hospitals in the United States are required by law to provide treatment to individuals with medical emergencies.

So how much does the fragmented U.S. system of medical insurance discourage people from moving between states?  I doubt there is any way to make a reliable estimate.  Obviously, it's not an impediment for people with federally funded and administered medical programs or for employees who move from one state to another while working for an employer that provides access to a group insurance policy.  Medicaid recipients who qualify for coverage in one state will usually qualify in another, but poor people in general probably tend to be less likely than affluent ones to relocate.  For those who need to acquire insurance on their own, it certainly could be a factor to consider before relocating—at least, if there is no guarantee of employer-sponsored insurance in the new location.

[jeremyrh]

In the daily cut and thrust of argumentation, it's sometimes helpful to go back to basics. Does anyone remember the reason they wanted to "leave" in the first place and what the benefits of that would be?

Something to do with bendy bananas as far as I recall.

[TonyW]

In the daily cut and thrust of argumentation, it's sometimes helpful to go back to basics. Does anyone remember the reason they wanted to "leave" in the first place and what the benefits of that would be?....

My opinion is that the main themes for the leave campaign revolve around sovereignty and migration.

Sovereignty is the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK.  Thomson Reuters report suggests that over 50,000 laws have been introduced by the EU legislation into the UK since 1990. 

The exact figures and interpretation of law vs rules vs regulation vs recommendation may be disputed but the fact remains that an awful lot of rulings have been pushed upon us including but not limited to trade, agriculture, financial services, employment, immigration.   Some I am sure welcomed as being good for instance climate and energy laws to cut greenhouse gas emissions from major industries or (depending on worker or employer!!) The Working Time directive giving workers rights to minimum holiday entitlements and limiting a working week to 48 hours.  This does not apply to all of course and we have relatives living and working in Scotland as doctors that are under pressure and have to work considerably longer hours than this! 

The ‘bendy banana law’ is a ridiculous example of red tape and wastage of money (ours!) and resources.  Started to lay down quality standards for bananas in 1995 and replaced with new rules in 2012.  Most of us are quite capable of choosing or rejecting a fruit or vegetable that does not meet our aesthetic ideals or taste – I like really ripe bananas that are flecked and brown whereas my better half likes them close to green – I rarely get to eat bananas these days unless I squirrel them away!  It is not clear to me if the regulations actually meant a real ban on bent bananas or just a classification of substandard.  The stupidity of such a thing seems plain to see and the only advantage I can see is for that rule makers create employment opportunities within Brussels.  How many more examples will you find if you look?  It would be interesting to see an actual breakdown of the time and costs in monetary value and personnel this one aspect of silly red tape has cost members.

Sorry about the lengthy discourse on bananas but it was just a red herring to lead into fishing policy  . 

Following Brexit, the UK will no longer be a part of the EU fishing policy effectively becoming an independent coastal state with full responsibilities for managing fisheries in the UK’s own economic zone extending some 200 miles (?).  For many years there has been intense rivalry over fishing waters by our own fishermen and other members of the EU.  Occasionally spilling over into at best-heated argument and worse violence.  This may explain the vote to leave by many of our coastal towns particularly those reliant on fishing.

Talking about fish thoughts turned to Wales (sorry only a small joke I love Wales particularly North Wales where my parents once lived).  It seems that in these debates it is always put across that it is the English alone that want to leave vs the other countries in the UK.  Not seen a mention of Wales which did vote to leave by a majority of 52.5% - seems like it is a two all draw for countries :-)

Migration is obviously a thorny subject not just in Europe but for many countries.  Will building walls help, I do not know.  We once had an Italian by the name of Hadrian visit us and order the building of a wall.  Depending on which side of the wall you stood it could be viewed as keeping the barbarians out or keeping the English bastards in.  In any event, it did not work.   

Seriously, migration can be both good and bad for a country.  The good being an influx of new blood bringing needed skills and expertise to benefit all without becoming a burden to the state.  A prime example being our National Health service which although rather ill itself at the moment would fall apart without the skilled and dedicated support of many nationalities including those outside Europe.  The bad being those that are not prepared to apply themselves and work and see sponging off state services as acceptable and some kind of right effectively denying the really needy of help.

Of course, we English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish have also been responsible and migrated some of our very best gangsters and villains to the Spanish Costa's possibly relieving us of their demands on society.  Who would have guessed that they would be replaced by European gangs?

 

[Rhossydd]

My opinion is that the main themes for the leave campaign revolve around sovereignty and migration.

That's certainly what they tried to suggest;
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
Although the actual facts are somewhat different and the blatant lies on that page still haven't been removed.

The ‘bendy banana law’ is a ridiculous example of red tape and wastage of money (ours!) and resources.

This is also one of the most misunderstood and repeated bits of false information.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/media/euromyths/bendybananas.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/11/boris-johnson-launches-the-vote-leave-battlebus-in-cornwall

To quote from the last article"Nothing is banned under the regulation, which sets grading rules requested by industry to make sure importers – including UK wholesalers and supermarkets – know exactly what they will be getting when they order a box of bananas."
What's wrong with that ?

So much has been lied about EU regulation that the EU set up a dedicated myth busting web page on them. https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

Following Brexit, the UK will no longer be a part of the EU fishing policy effectively becoming an independent coastal state with full responsibilities for managing fisheries in the UK’s own economic zone extending some 200 miles (?).  For many years there has been intense rivalry over fishing waters by our own fishermen and other members of the EU.  Occasionally spilling over into at best-heated argument and worse violence.

Er yes, the last time there was dispute over fishing rights it was British trawlers raiding French waters.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45337091
That the UK fishing industry will be hit hard by brexit by cutting off their main export market is wonderful example of how people are being taken advantage of.
Whether the fishing industry is worth so much attention when it is so insignificant to the UK economy is debatable too.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... To quote from the last article"Nothing is banned under the regulation, which sets grading rules requested by industry to make sure importers – including UK wholesalers and supermarkets – know exactly what they will be getting when they order a box of bananas."
What's wrong with that ?

If importers want to know what they will be getting, they can specify it in contracts with exporters. It doesn't really need a bloated bureaucracy to do that. The very fact that there are dedicated people in charge of monitoring bendy-banana issues speaks by itself how ridiculous and petty bureaucracy can become.

...So much has been lied about EU regulation that the EU set up a dedicated myth busting web page on them...

If you need to set up a myth-busting page, you've already lost the battle.

[TonyW]

That's certainly what they tried to suggest;
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
Although the actual facts are somewhat different and the blatant lies on that page still haven't been removed.

Yes of course your view of what you believe to be actual facts!
Blatant lies well again yes and you should consider taking action and legal advice to sue as you have factual evidence.  Please feel free to reveal your ‘actual facts’ from an impartial source I trust!

This is also one of the most misunderstood and repeated bits of false information.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/media/euromyths/bendybananas.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/11/boris-johnson-launches-the-vote-leave-battlebus-in-cornwall

To quote from the last article"Nothing is banned under the regulation, which sets grading rules requested by industry to make sure importers – including UK wholesalers and supermarkets – know exactly what they will be getting when they order a box of bananas."
What's wrong with that ?

So you are in violent agreement with my assesment that it is a nonsense? But as yet you have said nothing about the cost of such red tape therefore can we assume you approve of such wastage of resources?

So much has been lied about EU regulation that the EU set up a dedicated myth busting web page on them. https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/
Er yes, the last time there was dispute over fishing rights it was British trawlers raiding French waters.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45337091
That the UK fishing industry will be hit hard by brexit by cutting off their main export market is wonderful example of how people are being taken advantage of.
Whether the fishing industry is worth so much attention when it is so insignificant to the UK economy is debatable too.

There have been so many lies and falsehoods by all sides on many issues.
Yes British trawlers may have raided other waters in tit for tat exchanges.  The main export markets will not be cut off due to a split with EU is another opinion.
Your claim that the fishing industry is not worth attention as it is insignificant is deplorable

[Rhossydd]

Yes of course your view of what you believe to be actual facts!

"Turkey is one of five new countries joining the EU" No, they've applied to join, but have been refused membership. There are no confirmed new members pending at the moment.
"We'll have to keep bailing out the euro", No, we're not in the eurozone we have no financial commitment to it.
The £350m lie has been pulled apart so often it's barely worth doing again here.

But as yet you have said nothing about the cost of such red tape

An industry requested standard is hardly 'red tape'.

British trawlers may have raided other waters in tit for tat exchanges.

Any evidence of disputes about foreign trawlers fishing in UK only waters ?

Your claim that the fishing industry is not worth attention as it is insignificant is deplorable

Again, not what I said. Please comment on what I write, not what your prejudices think.
The debate is whether the fishing industry should be a key reason to leave the EU (as it has been used for) when it contributes so little to the UK economy and employs so few.

[jeremyrh]

The debate is whether the fishing industry should be a key reason to leave the EU (as it has been used for) when it contributes so little to the UK economy and employs so few.

Comically, Grimsby, which voted 70% leave, has now been demanding "free port" status to mitigate the impact of the resulting import/export restrictions.

[TonyW]

...The £350m lie has been pulled apart so often it's barely worth doing again here.

As you seem reluctant to quote figures I will.  £350 million is roughly what we would pay to the EU budget without a rebate.  The amount actually paid with the rebate is closer to £250 million a week.  So yes it was not exactly the whole truth but...No different economy of truth than the remainers claim that there are an equal number of expats in Europe to those enjoying life in the UK the difference being actually 1.2 million expats in Europe with 3.2 million EU migrants in Britain

An industry requested standard is hardly 'red tape'.

What industry standard and what authority?  Semantics and an evasion of the original question.  Are you a would be politician by any chance?

Any evidence of disputes about foreign trawlers fishing in UK only waters ?

I have not searched but the dispute you linked to the UK government has stated that the fisherman had the rights and were going about there business legally

Spokesman Alan Hastings said: “French fishermen resorting to intimidation and violence is hypocrisy in the extreme.
“For 40 years we have had to endure French and other EU fishermen catching 60 percent of the fish in British waters, insultingly much taken just off the coasts of Cornwall.
“The EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has been deliberately loaded against Britain.
“Although we've provided half the waters and resources to the common pot we've only received 25 per cent of the internationally agreed total allowable quotas (TACs).”

Again, not what I said. Please comment on what I write, not what your prejudices think.

Once again your insinuation of prejudice are objectionable and now you are beginning to annoy as I believe you are baiting

The debate is whether the fishing industry should be a key reason to leave the EU (as it has been used for) when it contributes so little to the UK economy and employs so few.

There is no debate my contention is that fishing rights may be a reason why coastal towns voted to leave.  You, sir, are the one that needs to comment on what was written rather than put your own spin on things

[Ray]

I've been reluctant to comment on this Brexit issue because the entire situation seems so ridiculously convoluted and confusing, and because I'm not a British resident familiar with the nuances.

Although I was born, raised and educated in England, I left the country long before Britain became a member of the EU, finally settling in Australia around 1972 because I preferred the weather, the more laid-back and egalitarian society with less strict rules, the closer proximity of Australia to Asian countries such as Thailand where I had lived and worked in my early 20's, and so on.

However, it has occurred to me that a more serious problem than the Brexit issue, is the apparent inability of the British political system to implement the outcome of their own referendum. In other words, the confusion and never-ending delays and disagreements preventing an amicable Brexit solution, is an indication that the political system and rules regarding referendums in the UK need to be changed.

The referendum procedures are flawed. My advice to the UK would be, first change the rules regarding referendums so that the outcome will be clear and unambiguous, then hold another referendum on the Brexit issue.

In the Australian system, those voter results on the Brexit referendum would not have been considered a sufficient majority. Our standards are higher. 

In Australia, in order for a referendum to succeed, a double majority is required. That is, a majority of the total votes throughout the country is required, in addition to a majority vote in the majority of the states. We have 6 states in Australia (although one of them is described as a Territory). Not all states have similar size populations, so in a referendum it would be possible for there to be a significant over-all majority, say 65%, which would, however, not be sufficient if 3 out of the 6 states voted against the referendum.

As I understand, the UK has 'effectively' 4 states which have at least some of their own administrative powers within the system; England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. Only England and Wales voted to leave the EU, (2 out of 4) and the over-all majority throughout the UK was quite small at 51.9%. That's the problem.

[jeremyrh]

Ray you are correct, but at the root of the matter is that the whole referendum farce was designed to solve an internal Tory party problem, and demonstrate to UKIP that there was no support for their position. As such, the rules seemed unimportant. That backfired spectacularly, as we see.

[TonyW]

.....However, it has occurred to me that a more serious problem than the Brexit issue, is the apparent inability of the British political system to implement the outcome of their own referendum. In other words, the confusion and never-ending delays and disagreements preventing an amicable Brexit solution, is an indication that the political system and rules regarding referendums in the UK need to be changed.

The referendum procedures are flawed. My advice to the UK would be, first change the rules regarding referendums so that the outcome will be clear and unambiguous, then hold another referendum on the Brexit issue.

In the Australian system, those voter results on the Brexit referendum would not have been considered a sufficient majority. Our standards are higher. 

Ray, a reasoned opinion and confirmation to me of the great trait of Australian pragmatism.  There is absolutely no reason why you should not voice your opinion here Brit or not.

Ever since we entered the EU there have been a good number of Eurosceptics putting a good case forward for not being part of the union, UKIP being probably the straw that broke the camels back. 

Regardless of viewpoint, I believe it is clear that rules need to be reviewed and changed and agree that 'a sufficient majority' needs to be established.  What constitutes a sufficient majority 15,30,60,90%?  Ahh, a subject for another referendum 

After consideration, I have come to the conclusion that perhaps if we have another failure to reach an agreement a referendum should be held with very clear cut rules of what will happen in the event of not reaching a sufficient majority - God help us with that one as we would be stuck in the same loop!

Does this viewpoint break any democratic ideal I am not sure but it may help to partially heal the divide within the British public on this subject.

[Ray]

Regardless of viewpoint, I believe it is clear that rules need to be reviewed and changed and agree that 'a sufficient majority' needs to be established.  What constitutes a sufficient majority 15,30,60,90%?  Ahh, a subject for another referendum 

Well, obviously not 15% or 30%. The two basic choices would be either a 'double majority' or a significant over-all majority such as 60% or 70%, say 2/3rds.

I guess the problem with the 'double majority' concept is that the populations of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland are so small compared with England. I didn't realize that the population of Northern Ireland is less than 2 million. Wales and Scotland have larger populations but still small compared with England's 56 million, which is 10 times the population of Scotland, and about 18 times the population of Wales.

With a 'double majority' requirement for a referendum to succeed, one could get a very large over-all majority in favour of the referendum, such as 80% of all voters, yet the referendum could still fail if the majority vote in N. Ireland and Wales went the other way. That doesn't seem a fair balance.

Perhaps the British government could combine the two issues into one referendum, in order to save time and money. The ballot paper would include two major questions. (1) 'Should the UK leave the EU? (2) Should a 2/3rd's majority be required for all referendums to pass?

If just 51% vote that a 2/3rd's majority should be required, but less than 66% vote to leave the EU, then the UK would have to remain in the EU. Problem solved.

However, if only 49% vote for the 2/3rd's majority requirement, and 51% vote to leave the EU, then we are back to the same situation of confusion and indecision. The people have spoken, and they have not changed their mind. Can you believe such a result would occur? 

[32BT]

2. Referenda could be used to collect the public opinion on far-reaching decisions, either in an advisory form, to help a government make up its mind, or in a binding form, which has to be followed by government (or they could resign). The problem with referenda is that they require well-informed voters, and that's not easy in this day and age where fake news, foreign interference, and populism, distort a clear view on such complex issues.

I tend to disagree with this for two reasons:
1 with all referenda I know of, the sentiment and outcome was mostly known, especially roughly or indicatively, which means it is a waste of resources. Even if something topples at 51% that still doesn't change the sentiment that apparently lives among a large part of the people.
2 referenda shouldn't involve binary decisions, as that doesn't contribute to the decisionmaking process and acceptance of consequences. Referenda should typically involve maybe 3 to 5 options with primary positive (and perhaps primary negative) consequence as part of the choice, imo. That would provide a better understanding both for the electorate as well as the legislators.
3 referenda as binary decision have a tendency to not think in terms of solutions. We detect a certain problem/sentiment. We need a solution. Wait, let's ask the people first if they want to solve or not solve the problem!

Migration apparently has become a problem, employment has become a problem, leaving the EU doesn't solve these problems and I don't believe the average voter thinks it is, but with a binary referendum, a pro brexit vote was the only way to show dissatisfaction with current affairs.

[mecrox]

I do not think that in a representative democracy, such a complex issue should be put in front of an ill-informed public.

1. Representatives were chosen, in the hope and expectation that they would thoroughly study the issues at hand, weigh all pro's and con's, and make an informed decision with the best interest of all the people (not only their voters) in mind. Since we do not live in an ideal world, there should be safeguards to avoid clientelism. Parliamentary voting should go a long way in achieving that, although a 2 party system is complicating things.

2. Referenda could be used to collect the public opinion on far-reaching decisions, either in an advisory form, to help a government make up its mind, or in a binding form, which has to be followed by government (or they could resign). The problem with referenda is that they require well-informed voters, and that's not easy in this day and age where fake news, foreign interference, and populism, distort a clear view on such complex issues.

3. Low voter turnout further complicates the issue of leaving it to the people. For such far-reaching decisions as a Brexit (which is too complex for a Yes/No vote), one could draw a line at 66.7 % off all eligible voters, not just the ones who cared enough to turn up despite the weather or were herded to the voting booths.

Cheers,
Bart

I agree. Things are further complicated at least in the UK by the inflexible two-party system, with no proportional representation. Both main parties have now in effect hijacked the referendum process, seeing going along with "the people's vote" was the only way of promoting their own, partisan interests regardless of whether Brexit is in anyone's long-term interests. It's all about access to power and maintaining the current political system. What Brexit has shown at least to some is that the current system is completely broken. It's disenfranchised people, since no matter who you vote for you get the same old crappy system anyway, and it's left the two main parties very poorly equipped to deal with the real challenges which lie ahead in terms of things like climate change and the world economy. Trump, Farage and co see this as the dawn of a new populist era. More likely it's the last gasp of a now-discredited old order. The young don't want it and aren't interested.

[Rob C]

Well, in the UK, informed political opinion imagined that there was no way an educated population aware of the results of the two choices would ever vote to leave; or so thought poor old Cameron.

The result showed that half the people, by a small percentage, had no idea what was actually involved beyond their personal fears and prejudices. Or, if they were better informed, considered suicide a more rational choice of action. Many people do that, so not much new.

Regarding the two-party system: we have it because the other alternative parties have no support in any meaningful way. Look at Spain today: you see at once the problems associated with having a country split between a myriad political parties. Three elections in four years, I think, and still no working majority today, just another sordid era of horse-trading, just as in England the UK with the current, paid-for, stitch-up with that NI party...

[Robert Roaldi]

There were a couple of references to "red tape" above and one comment by Slobodan about how importers and exporters can agree to certain criteria in contracts without bureaucratic oversight that should be examined a bit. The suggestion seems to be that independent agents don't need top-down rules from government, for example, to set up banana "bendiness" categories. I am not an expert in trade agreements but I have friends who worked on the original NAFTA agreement and there is a reason that these things are 1000s of pages long. A lot of those pages set up standards like the "bendiness" of bananas or how to specify the thread pitch of bolts in a standard uniform way so that all parties in the future can use these standard definitions to make life easier for themselves. These are NOT rules invented by civil servants to make trade difficult, these standards are ASKED FOR by commercial entities precisely because they don't want to waste time re-negotiating the "bendiness" categories of bananas with each importer/exporter with which that have to deal. It is not correct to think that these rules are handed down by government bureaucracies; companies in those industries and the various trade associations are integral to the construction of those rules in the first place. They themselves want the rules because it is more efficient and they make more money.

I have no doubt that from time to time one of the agents find something in the rules that they don't like. When does that NOT happen?

1000 pages of rules sounds like a lot when quoted in a newspaper article but it's better than 500 pages of rules in every contract that's ever written. Besides which, only a handful of those 1000 pages apply in any one industry anyway. Each individual may only need to read 5 pages, not 1000.

Having multiple participating parties agree to a set of banana categories does not impact any country's sovereignty except in the most trivial way. If a country is forced to come to many different agreements with many other countries when trading in bananas, its "sovereignty" will be NO LESS affected. If anything, it will increase the size of the bureaucracy.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... These are NOT rules invented by civil servants to make trade difficult, these standards are ASKED FOR by commercial entities precisely because they don't want to waste time re-negotiating the "bendiness" categories of bananas with each importer/exporter with which that have to deal....

Any proof/source for that?

Also, does anyone ever have the real need to think about bendiness of bananas in the first place?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 3. Low voter turnout further complicates the issue of leaving it to the people. For such far-reaching decisions as a Brexit (which is too complex for a Yes/No vote), one could draw a line at 66.7 % off all eligible voters, not just the ones who cared enough to turn up despite the weather or were herded to the voting booths.

That would make sense only if the same requirement was in place for the first referendum too.