This is utter nonsense. One of the principal criticisms against direct democracy is that it does result in "uninformed decisions with catastrophic consequences," as any casual reading of the history of Athens will demonstrate. If a demos has its decisions overturned by another body in government that is superior to it, then you don't have a democracy at all, you have an oligarchy or a republic, (equally noted is the tendency of a republic to turn into an oligarchy - ours has. That is, however, another conversation).
It is dismaying to hear this from a Yale professor - of economics, incidentally - who presumably ought to know the difference. It is less dismaying to hear it from J. K. Rowling, a spinner of fairy tales whose hefty bank account appears to have conferred a sense of political acumen for some unknown reason. The EU, however, is not Hogwarts, and the people in charge aren't faculty imbued with magical superpowers, even if occasionally they act that way.
Exactly. I can’t imagine what these people think democracy is.
That said, I’m not an advocate for direct democracy on a large scale (national matters). Works OK for smaller countries like Switzerland and on local issues. But not a great idea for entire large countries.
Still, if you’re going to have a national referendum, then you have to abide by the result. If they didn’t intend to do that, they should not have held the election in the first place. Seems more than dishonest to hold an election if you have no intention of abiding by the results should it not go your way.
They are playing with fire here.