By P Gosselin
The results of Berlin’s Climate Neutrality By 2030 referendum tell us that FFF and Last Generation are fringe movements, remote of even Berlin’s mainstream.
It’ll take a longtime for the radical climate activists to recover from this major setback
The movement’s leaders reacted in disbelief and sourly to the defeat, as Twitter account holder Georg tweeted:
Crushing defeat
Last Sunday’s “Berlin Climate Neutrality By 2030” referendum failed resoundingly despite the more than a million euros spent in a massive run-up campaign that included plastering the city with posters, concerts by famous performers, huge support and propaganda by the media and hefty donations coming from left wing activists from the east and west coasts of USA.
Once the dust of the referendum had settled, it emerged that the “yes” side fell way short of the quorum 608,000 votes needed to pass the measure. Only 442,210 cast a vote in favor, which represents only 18% of Berlin’s eligible voters. The activists expected a far greater turnout. 82% refused to lend any support.
Berlin’s rejection of the climate neutrality by 2030 mandate is a massive body blow to the the radical Fridays for Future and Last Generation movement in Germany, and it will take months for the radicals to recover, it ever, from this setback.
The Berlin initiative to make the city climate neutral by 2030 was led by rich, upper class youths like Luisa “Longhaul” Neubauer. But Berliners, having been harassed for months by activists gluing themselves to the streets and blocking traffic, saw the folly of the initiative and the high costs it would entail politically and financially. They decided resoundingly they’d wanted no part of it.
Lashing out at the majority
The agony of referendum defeat was palpable as some of its leaders reacted by lashing out and insulting those who refused to vote “yes”, In a video, movement co-leader Luisa Neubauer sank into cynical accusations against the majority, even calling the uncooperative Berliners “fossil cynics” and “climate destroyers”.
Neubauer added: “There are forces in this city that are doing everything to get the last spark of climate destruction out.” In Neubauer’s view these forces include the vast 82% of Berliners who refused to vote “yes”. So troublesome democracy can be.
“Bubble has finally burst”
Germany’s Pleiteticker here commented on the Berlin referendum:
Social Democrat Dario Schramm wept on Twitter at the gloating that would now come from the other side. But he and other supporters of the green ban politics need not be surprised. For years they have been spreading their ideas of good politics for years in a self-righteous, arrogant and sometimes aggressive manner.
They, mostly members of the upper middle class, have declared war on the lower and lower middle class with their destructive climate measures. Outside the Berlin political bubble and the other urban feel-good oases of Germany, the Neubauers of this world never possessed much support. And now the bubble has finally burst. In the Marzahn, Köpenick and Lichtenberg districts, the majority of voters voted against the referendum. The normal working population of Berlin decided against the journalistic and political elite.”
But don’t expect the climate radicals to go away. They’ll be back at it soon enough.
Tee Hee 🤣
It is funny – especially for the historical parallel, 78 years ago, another eco-fascist blamed Berliners and other Germans for the failures of his grand plans for world domination.
The result , endorsed by ALL the major political parties, was the existing Climate Neutral by 2045 remains- the referendum was to move it to the absurd date of 2030
It’s a start, lots of brainwashing to overcome with the youth. Inevitable turn of the tide coming, power bills provide a dose of reality.
“Only 442,210 cast a vote in favor, which represents only 18% of Berlin’s eligible voters. The activists expected a far greater turnout. 82% refused to lend any support.”
This is a very dishonest way of describing the result. In fact, there were more votes in favour than against. Of course, Gosselin doesn’t mention that anywhere.
“Shortly before the end of the count, there were around 423,000 votes in favor and around 405,000 votes against. The quorum for a successful referendum would have been around 608,000 votes in favor of the proposal.“
There just wasn’t sufficient turnout for the majority to prevail.
You’re not a student of John Major, are you?
No, but I’ll note that Boris Johnson in 2019 was said to have achieved the most sweeping victory of modern times. He got 13966454 votes out of 47568611 eligible voters. Gosselin would have described that as “70.6% of voters refuse to support the Tories”. Or would he?
Or, to quote another famous case, 62.6% of Britons refused to support Brexit in the referendum.
John Major was a democracy denier.
John Major’s father was a circus acrobat. Many jokes were made about Major being the only boy to ever run away from the circus to become an accountant….
Don’t hold the UK up as a good example of democracy.
FPTP has given us minority governments at every GE since the war.
“First past the post” is better than being run by a coalition of fringe, clown parties.
I didn’t say it was. But FPTP certainly doesn’t give a parliament that reflects how a country voted
I think the US, specifically California (who could have guessed?) has the record for most bizarre outcome of a referendum.
Back in the day, California was voting on a state constitutional amendment to not allow same-sex marriage. Marriage would be defined as only between one man and one woman, etc.
The amendment carried by a 2-to-1 margin. The California Supreme Court, in what had to be an unprecedented decision, disallowed the amendment on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.
An amendment to a constitution, duly voted on the population, was declared unconstitutional.
I think that was the real beginning of judicial activism in the US.
You are a clown Nit pic Nick,
Don’t you know what a Referendum is and how they work .
To get a government to advance any policy that citizens want put into law governments or even councils state that a certain proportion of eligible voters have to vote for change .
The general public were not going to waste their time voting for laws and regulations to make them worse off .
The green blob tried and failed as they knew when they launched the referendum how many votes they had to get to succeed .
Yes, and that’s counted as NO.
OK, then 62.6% of Britons refused to support Brexit in the referendum. Is that counted as NO?
Disingenuous as always…
You have FAILED to comprehend reality, yet again.
Oh dear Nick.
You are a ‘remainer’ and I claim the tenner.
“Turnout: 72.2% – ie >50%
Remain: 16,141,241
Leave: 17,410,742
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/results-and-turnout-eu-referendum
The thing about democracy, Nick, is sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.
What Nick is saying is that by applying the rule that for a change then over 50% of the electorate have to be in favour of change. Clearly in the case of Brexit they weren’t.
There is a precedent in the UK, the Scottish Devolution Referendum of 1979 result
Yes 1,230,937 51.62%
No 1,153,502 48.38%
But the Labour government of the day declared that it failed.
The other thing about the UK is that since 1945 there’s never been a single party in power on over 50% of the vote.
You may not like it and be quite happy with the situation but the 1979 Referendum and the slogan “It’s Scotland’s oil” gave the SNP a kick start which Maggie then built on.
I don’t claim any of this is my personal view, but it’s how these things work
The failed 1979 devolution election needs a better explanation
‘ As there was a turnout of 64% the “Yes” vote represented only 32.9% of the registered electorate ‘
it needed to be 40% of registered voters as it was decided before vote.
The later successful election had only 60% turnout but 75% of that in favour. ( 51% in 79)
You’ve just confirmed why the Brexit vote should have been a no vote if Cameron had been more savvy
I have to agree with Nick Stokes. Had David Cameron had a 50%+1 of the electorate for a change rule for the Brexit referendum then it would have failed.
However in both cases those voting knew the rules and therefore by not voting they either didn’t support the proposition or didn’t care either way
There just wasn’t sufficient turnout for the majority to prevail.”
PRECISELY.
No-one wanted to vote for it except the “selected elite”
I suppose you think you are one of those . !
”There just wasn’t sufficient turnout for the majority to prevail.”
Hey Nick, As we are continually told we are in the midst of a climate crisis and the world is doomed, don’t you think people would come out in droves to vote so as to… Save the planet???
Obviously people are waking up to the scam while they decide on more important things like keeping warm or cook the next meal.
If I ever have the opportunity to vote NO in such a referendum I will camp outside the polling station if necessary.
Not voting in a referendum is different from not voting in an election. Referenda are for keeps. There isn’t (intended to be) a second chance in a few years. I can’t admire anyone who could have voted NO who just didn’t show up.
What if the turnout was quorate? The measure would have passed. Losing because it wasn’t quorate is just a bullet dodged, not a win for the NOs.
Get off your arse when these things come up.
“There isn’t (intended to be) a second chance in a few years.”
Try saying that to the SNP…
You are absolutely correct! While it’s always fun to engage with Nick, the simple truth is that Berlin dodged a bullet, i.e., had a relative handful more of the faithful and their useful idiots turned out, it would literally be lights out. Why are Germans so apathetic in the face of yet another movement that threatens to take them on a foray into collectivist extremism?
Still lying, still illiterate. Read the article, Nick. Or read WUWT, where the same story, with the numbers, was quoted in the piece placed by Worrall.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/29/berliners-reject-climate-neutral-by-2030-ballot/
When Nick is right, it’s a very rare event, but this case shows that it’s not impossible as most had thought.
We shouldn’t delude ourselves. The Ja vote exceeded the Nein. To characterize that as an overwhelming rejection is best translated as Wahnsinn. (Insanity)
82% didn’t bother to vote. In a real no-tricks zone, we might say that a technicality saved Berlin from a radical measure passing despite a majority vote.
Absolutely. It was a bullet dodged. That’s just dumb luck and I am not comforted in the least.
64.4% didn’t bother to vote.
Yes thanks for the correction.
82% voted with their feet.
Get it?
64% actually bonbon
But the thing about not voting is that it leaves ambiguous whether the non-voter despairs of seeing their opinion prevail or is confident that their vote is not needed.
I don’t properly understand the German election system, but the Germans do. Their personal decisions to vote, or not, are influenced by the rules of the game.
Just dismissing the result as a technicality doesn’t properly credit the Germans’ personal decision making processes.
I always respect your wise comments commiebob, and agree with much of what you say here.
The rules of the game are certainly relevant. Most people avoid unnecessary effort. The fact that only a third of the eligible voters bothered to vote tells me a something more nuanced than the no tricks zone polemic.
It tells me that most of the voters agree with the goal of net zero but do not think it’s prudent to try to achieve it at a faster pace.
Less than 1/6 of the voters hold a strong opinion opposed to net zero. It seems unlikely that a hardcore skeptic would miss the opportunity to voice their protest. Probably the number of the strongly skeptical is less than 10%.
A number of those who voted against the proposal are likely opposed only to the accelerated timetable rather than to the end goal. Let’s say 5% of the electorate as a whole approve of net zero but strongly oppose accelerating the timeline.
So that leaves about 20% hardcore Greens who, like their archenemies, would be unlikely to miss the opportunity to make a statement through their vote. Only in contrast to the skeptics, they want to proclaim their faith in Climastrology.
Then there are the 64% who did not vote. What do we know about them and what can we speculate about their views?
A vanishing number are strongly in the skeptic camp but for some reason could not make it to vote. I’ll guess 1%.
Some may oppose net zero but be in despair of having any impact—“why bother?” I’ll guess 2%.
A not-insignificant number may think that they don’t feel qualified to express an opinion—“I’ll go along with what the majority decides”. The typical 20-30% who don’t ever care enough about politics to form a strong opinion. Let’s call it 25%.
Another cohort are shy skeptics. They don’t want to be branded as heretics (the modern term is far right extremist). They voice support for net zero if an acolyte of Climastrology challenges them to make a profession of faith, but secretly they think it’s nonsense. This includes the group who might have voted Nein if the polls had indicated Ja might prevail, but who didn’t bother to vote because it didn’t seem necessary. I’m thinking maybe 10%.
Like the vanishingly small number of strong skeptics who could not vote for some reason, there may be a tiny number of Ja proponents who failed to vote. Say 1%.
So far I have accounted for 74%, so 26% remain. Those are the ones who favor net zero but think the current pace is as fast as possible.
Now add together 10%+1%+2%+10% and that gives us 23% skeptics of any shade. 25% unsure relying on the experts, and 52% supporting net zero at least at the current pace even if only 20% are for more ambition.
We can delude ourselves that 82% oppose net zero, our we can live in the real world.
You fail to recognize that in most polls that rank what things concern people. climate change is dead last, or even not on the list at all. It is no wonder that people didn’t turn out. They Just Don’t Believe In Climate Change.
Fake information and temperature increases in the 3 decimal points just won’t override what people experience every day. Failed prediction after failed prediction for the last 40 years doesn’t help convince people that what they actually see and experience isn’t real. In other words the phrase “don’t believe your lying eyes”, just doesn’t cut it.
You’re extrapolating. Bad boy! You’re assuming that the whole population would vote the same pattern as the self-selected sample that did vote.
It is very reliable that, when asked, people select climate change as one of the least important problems. In the ongoing Gallup poll on the Nation’s Most Important Problem, 3% of people cite ‘Environment/Pollution/Climate change’ as the most important problem. It’s not even in the top ten.
Most people think the most important thing is to avoid starving and freezing to death in the dark.
Germans now have a lot of experience with trying to achieve net zero. Of course they won’t vote for more of the same medicine.
“You’re assuming that the whole population would vote the same pattern as the self-selected sample that did vote.”
That’s a better assumption that that of the headline here “Whopping 82% Of Berlin’s Voters Refused To Support 2030 Climate Neutrality”
which assumes they would all have voted NO.
But in all US and UK elections and referenda the same assumption is made. The result goes by the majority of those who vote.
No, it isn’t a better assumption. The structure of the vote with its quota required to pass means that not voting is sufficient when the polling tells you that the yes vote won’t make the quota. It also means that those in favour already knew they needed to do more to secure turnout to change that.
The quota is what is required to make the result legally binding (either way). There is nothing to stop politicians citing the referendum majority in deciding what to do, as they did with Brexit.
No, the result is legally binding. There will be no change in the law. It’s a binary thing: had the vote been in favour and met the quorum it would have resulted in an immediate change in the law. There is no option to change the law now that the result is in.
“There is no option to change the law”
There is no requirement to change the law. But they can if they want. Failure to reach the quorum just means that the result is not binding either way.
No, Nick. Election law is not an expression of sampling methodology. Election law defines the ‘rules of the game’. If you don’t vote, your opinion is irrelevant.
You forfeit your right to influence the result if you don’t participate. The result is legitimate regardless of whether the sample is representative.
It is in no way the case that popular elections were envisioned to be scientifically valid polls. They were understood to be a mechanism by which stakeholders could act on their interests without resorting to violence.
In Berlin, one of the ‘rules of the game’ was that there needed to be a quorum. That rule, that technicality, is what averted a mad outcome.
But Gosselin wants to count those who didn’t vote as NO votes.
Yes, Nick. I agreed with you on that limited point.
Nick is quite right of course. The abstainers might equally be described as refusing to reject the 2030 Climate Neutrality.
Referenda need SUPPORT. Staying home is a NO vote.
As Nick says – on that basis the nation voted not to leave the EU.
You’re assuming that, if the rules of the game were different, people’s decisions to vote, or not, would have been the same.
Predicting a counterfactual past is just as unreliable as predicting the future.
Jtom, incredible that so many commenters miss this simple but precise point. I’ve long thought WUWT was home to some of the brightest, hmmm.
I don’t think that is the case, given the rules of the election. Indeed, German expert commentators were surprised by the size of the No vote, expecting that most who were against would not vote, as that was sufficient, given polling was showing that Yes support was insufficient to meet the quota.
The rules for the referendum were clearly set. The quorum vote was part 9f that. With just 35.6% turnout, there is no way it could be regarded as an adequate endorsement to have 50.9% of those who did vote dictate to the City. Voters decided not to vote knowing the quorum rule. If there was no quorum rule many more would have voted against.
The rule was that 608000 votes were required for the result to be legally enforceable. With Brexit, say, the result was not legally enforceable. Parliament, however, chose to respect it, even though a majority of the voters overall did not vote for it.
The rules were clear in both cases. With the requirement that at least 25% of the electorate had to vote in favour in Berlin opinion polling showed that it was not necessary to vote against to prevent the proposition being passed. In the case of Brexit David Cameron famously promised “We will implement what you decide” before resigning so that fell to others to try to implement. There was no public vote on the major EU treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon, so presumably there was on legitimacy in agreeing to them.
In the case of this referendum, a refusal to vote was a vote of NO and it has to be assumed after all of the hype leading up to it, that those eligible to vote understood that fact! Your making a distinction without a difference. You have no idea how those that did not bother to vote would have cast their ballots and your attempt to do so is an obvious indication of desperation.
The simple fact is, the green agenda is making it much more difficult for the average person to maintain their standard of living and almost impossible to improve it. When times get tough, the more abstract notions of what may be coming in the future fade into irrelevance as all thoughts and effort are focused on keeping ones head above water at the present time.
Now quit your whining. Your side took an ass whooping. Admit it, honestly assess why, and drive on and see if you can apply the five steps of the problem solving process. I don’t think it will help, because all the polling seems to indicate that from the beginning “climate change” has been near the bottom of the list of priorities for the people everywhere.
And , some who did not vote could tell their activist contacts “I didn’t vote against the proposal ” ?
😉
“there were more votes in favour than against. Of course, Gosselin doesn’t mention that anywhere.”
duh…. but the article does say only 18% of eligible voters bothered to vote- I suppose you think that’s irrelevent
‘Very dishonest’?
Which part of the statement is untrue? It’s called spin, Nick, which is why it’s never a good idea to rely on one source if you want a full picture of anything.
The really sad part of the story is that 423,000 people were gullible enough to vote Yes.
For once I agree with Nick. It IS a dishonest report. Nick is wrong that the vote was close; the greenies still couldn’t get enough supporters to pass the measure. Maybe too many couldn’t find the glue remover.
Not dishonest. It honestly said only 18% supported the referendum. Perfectly true.
I’m going to rate Nick a “mostly true” on this one. Yes, the majority of votes cast were in favor. In most elections, this would be a winner.
On the other hand, too few voters cared enough about the referendum to show up to vote. By the rules of this election, they referendum failed. Let’s not spin this to mean more than it does, or in Nick’s case, less.
Sorry all, I’m with Nick in this one…a first after following WUWT for 15 years. My first instinct was “gasp! They got 70% of the way there!” That’s easily met with multiple tries/campaigns. They only need 200,000 more people to vote yes. It’ll happen.
I don’t share your confidence. The Red-Green local government thought it was an unattainable step too far, and did not support the campaign. Try again in another year or two, and there would be even less time to try to fix it.
You’re right, of course, about the numbers. As to what the vote shows, I don’t find it very easy to reach clear conclusions.
The difference of this from the Johnson or Brexit referendums, which are referred to in the thread, is that in this one the voters knew that if a quorum (seems to have been 25% in favor) was not achieved, the measure would fail.
In Brexit a bare majority of votes cast was enough. Similarly in the Scotland independence referendum. In the Johnson case you had the complication that only a few tens of thousands were voting for or against him. During that election everyone voted only for their local MP, so you can’t assume that all votes cast for or against Conservatives, or abstentions, were based on the voter’s opinion of Johnson. Same with the Blair elections earlier.
This may give abstention a different force and motivation. A voter may have felt less at risk from abstaining if he didn’t believe the pro side had the muscle to get to 25%. Whereas in the case of Brexit or Scotland the only threshold was majority of votes cast, which may have been a greater incentive to vote.
In UK Parliamentary elections, because of First Passed the Post and the phenomenon of tribal voting and safe seats, there are a lot of people in some seats who don’t bother voting, even though they may be strongly committed to the opposing party. This is probably true in many northern seats, and even in London. If you are a Conservative and live in Camden, for instance, don’t bother, its hopeless and your vote will not make the slightest difference.
It is a reasonable conclusion that a radical measure which can only attract 18% of the voters does not have popular support, and considering the green frenzy that has gripped Germany in recent decades, that is quite significant that such a measure hasn’t built more of a base.
The local net zero movement is not going to get anywhere because its pretty much impossible to do. The local council whether Country District or City doesn’t have the powers it needs. They cannot, for instance, dictate what heating people use, what cars they drive…. etc.
They can try and restrict cars because of measures that are ostensibly traffic regulation for other purposes than getting to net zero. But this just arouses intense hostility and resistance.
My impression, its no more than that, is that in Britain were such a poll to be conducted locally just about anywhere, including in Scotland, the result would be as bad or worse for the climate activists. I think there’s a strong sense in Britain that local councils should get on with their own business and stop trying to set policies that are properly the province of national government.
I also think if there were to be a referendum on net zero in Britain it too would most likely sink like a stone at a national level. Not just in England, in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well.
Which may account for the fact that the only people demanding one are those that want the whole Climate Change Act abolished.
“If you are a Conservative and live in Camden, for instance, don’t bother, its hopeless and your vote will not make the slightest difference.”
Imagine living in California, a state with circa 40 million legal citizens. The winner-takes-all approach is more easily changed by your own voting/actions in a London Borough than it is in Cal. The UK system does allow for local representation to be heard in parliament if you start haranguing your MP.
If Berliners understand the quorum requirement, they would also know that not voting is equivalent to a NO vote. Why go to the trouble if you can effectively vote no by doing nothing?
‘Why go to the trouble if you can effectively vote no by doing nothing?’
Perhaps because there’s no way of knowing ahead of time that a quorum won’t be reached? Not coming out to vote “NO” is analogous to playing “Russian Roulette”. If that doesn’t resonate, there’s the historical fact that ‘all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing’.
Have you heard of opinion polls?
Yes, I have. Why do you ask?
“If Berliners understand the quorum requirement, they would also know that not voting is equivalent to a NO vote.”
No, it just means that the result, either way, was not legally binding. Brexit wasn’t legally binding either, but the parliament found it persuasive.
Parliament and the Supreme Court attempted to reverse the vote after Cameron had promised “We will implement what you decide.” That was a binding solemn promise. As it is, the establishment turned Brexit into a complete fudge, designed to be worse than a proper exit. To that extent they have indeed ignored the vote or the people. Just how keen to join the increasing EU mess they would be if they were allowed an informed choice is a moot question: the EU is in the process of falling apart.
“That was a binding solemn promise.”
Well, it binds Cameron, but he wasn’t there any more. Members of Parliament remain free to vote as they see fit.
and they did … what is your point?
The result was legally binding. It rejected the proposal to change the law, so the law will not be changed.
Just not true. A quorum was not reached, and so the referendum result, either way, is not legally binding. People can make of it what they choose.
The referendum in Berlin, assume you mean.
In the UK its impossible to hold a legally binding referendum because it would impair the sovereignty of Parliament, that being the cornerstone of the (unwritten) UK Constitution. No referendum can bind Parliament, no matter what its terms are.
Paradoxically, due to the nature of the UK Constitution, it being unwritten and based on case law and convention, it was however very difficult, politically impossible in fact, for the Government to refuse to follow the EU Referendum. That’s why you got all the twisting and turning and the calls for a re-run, and Theresa May’s doomed attempts to drive through a Brexit in name only.
No UK political party could have survived just openly declaring they were going to ignore the results of that referendum. Even though it wasn’t legally binding.
In the UK with referendums its a case of be careful what you wish for. And don’t put any store by the fact that implementing the referendum is not legally obligatory. That will not help you one bit.
Vernon Bogdanor, an acute commenter on UK constitutional matters, made the point that this was one of the few, maybe the only, cases on record of a country deciding to move from a written to an unwritten constitution. In this case, moving back.
Nick, you know the 97% number is a lie but I have never read anything here by you that says it is a lie. Please, put your “Oh my gosh he wrote a lie” face back on the shelf. Now you are being a hypocrite.
Agree. He is shading the covering to please the audience. A non-vote is not the same as a no vote. Probably, a lot of people realize the vote is meaningless regardless of the outcome.
Pick those nits.
Supposedly the future of the planet involved and Berlin said “YAWN”.
If they cared or believed the peddled claptrap they would have turned out.
As a resident of this planet, i would argue that the referendum was skewed in favor of the alarmists, only requiring 25% of all voters in order to enact a massive change in every aspect of life, it should be 60% or more.
But no its 25 and you still fail.
Well, Duh! That’s kind of the nature of the post. There weren’t enough voters who gave a sh1t. If only 1000 turned out and they all voted in favour, you think that should be good enough for a win???
There’s nothing dishonest about the presentation. The apathy of the 82% speaks for itself. You can’t just ignore it.
The majority opposed the vote, and won.
It is very telling that you routinely perceive, all around you, dishonesty through the framing a the argument.
Absolutely correct. The reporting is very silly.
A better way to report it could be, “Berlin votes for Green measures but fails to reach a threshold turnout”.
However, this is the end of the world we are talking about here.
So an even better way to report it could be, “Berlin votes for Green measures but fails to reach a threshold turnout… because most people don’t think the predictions of the end of the world are worth having an opinion about.”
Which is a victory for apathy.
Knew it!
If anyone was wondering what that tweet said (google translate I don’t speak German):
“Luisa and her climate cross knights probably did not expect 85% NO or didn’t even go to the vote.
Is she now treating herself to a long -distance trip with the plane to recover from the shock of the failed #peoples decision?”
I quite like this reply from another twitter user: “Not everything goes according to plan”
Every dog has its day. LOL.
That was a Klima-Kleber – . Looks like the dog knew they could not run away!
I wonder if the activists, will claim,”they didn’t know what they didn’t vote for”? 🙂
They all in Berlin knew about, as Berlin radio and tv broadcasts promoted 24/7 for days if not weeks in advance.
And, there was no NO initiative active !
Are you in Germany or closely following German elections? I’d like to know what else was on the ballot. Was this a general election?
”The agony of referendum defeat was palpable as some of its leaders reacted by lashing out and insulting those who refused to vote “yes”…”
How often do we see that from the left these days. Reminds me of the ”deplorables” insult.
You will see it everywhere. Mark my words, in this religion there is no forgiveness or redemption – only cancellation.
As ever, the Germans are admirably punctual; just as The Halfwit was proclaimed by Steinmeier (or is that Meinheimer?) as:
“You are, quite literally, the driving forces behind the energy transition,” he said. “You are helping to make the world a better place.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/king-charles-camilla-queen-consort-germany-visit-berlin-brandenburg-gate-b1070635.html
So Berliners gave the finger to the greens.
You really can’t make this stuff up.
Bundespresident Steinmeier is correct – Climate is King Charles III’s sandbox, sorry, throne for everyone to see.
Now look again at His Majesty’s clothes.
That’s one way to interpret it. Ultimately it was defeated, which is good news, but the raw numbers aren’t as rosy.
Although there was a narrow majority of votes in favor, the 442,210 of “yes” votes fell far short the 25% quorum of all eligible voters (607,518 votes) needed to make the referendum valid.
Yes: 442,210
No: 423,418
Of the people who felt strongly enough about this to turn out and vote, the ones in favor outnumbered those opposed. The ones who didn’t vote presumably don’t care either way. Or am I misunderstanding how this vote works?
Though they needed 25% of eligible voters and got only 18%, which looks like a solid defeat, leftists only have to convince another 172,000 people out of a population of 2.5 million to vote for their kooky scheme. They will certainly try again.
They tried hard with extensive media campaign support. It’s clear that they only have minority support in the population. How willing are the majority to undergo self immolation? What proportion of Shias really whip themselves during Ash Shura?
“climate destroyers”
Whatever planet these eco-nutters are on it ain’t Planet Earth.
https://youtu.be/WxhvWuoBywM?t=37
If Berliners won’t support such a law- I bet rural Germans have an even lower opinion of it.
Whispered Soto-Voce.
Not overheard, and all are whispering. Curious!
Refused? Closer to the truth, most of them did not care. They do not know what to think and are apolitical when it comes to climate change. It does not mean they would put up any ressistance either, rather they are sheep.
Quorum is key.
The Berlin Senate would have had to install rule-by-diktat for Euro 113 billion green financing with a budget of 38 billion, a New Morganthau Plan.
So much US money flowed into the campaign, shows this is not a local ‘thing’ but a single point-of-reference for D.C.s EU.
IMHO, now expect some form of typical de-stabilization.
This time people did follow the money trail : 2 major US doners Albert Wenger and his wife Susan Danziger of NY gave nearly $500,000, ten times more than the average donation they usually make. Theodore Roosevelt IV, a direct associate of environmentalist guru and former Vice President Al Gore just for example is also involved.
The juggernaut of Empire has now 3 wheels on its wagon, still rollin’ along. The other wheel is Kiev, a blowout is immanent.
18% of eligible voters is not a “resounding” defeat. How many eligible voters voted? But yes, any western metropolis turning down virtue signaling is amazing, so let’s celebrate the small victories we do get.
It’s the first time I have never heard the term ‘Klima Kreuzritter’ (literally translated Climate Cross-Rider i.e. riding in defence of the Church) and I will use the term CLIMATE CRUSADER in future!
Klima Kreuzritter means Climate Knight, or Crusader.
Klima Kleber means Climate Sticker.
They also serve who sit and glue, not gallop!
This is why leftists like Anita Dunn love China so much. They don’t have to do what the majority wants. They can do whatever the leader wants. And the Climate Nazis are jealous of that power. But never mind that. China’s leaders don’t want climate neutrality either, even though they could force it on their people with the stroke of a pen. Even they are smart enough to realize that climate neutrality would cripple any country that seriously attempts it.
Dear, dear, what is an Empire to do?
Britain has an un-elected Monarch, an un-elected Prime Minister (3 in a row and counting) and STILL cannot push through NetZero.
And un-elected EC Commissioner van der Leyen STILL cannot push EV’s through even with the stroke of a pen.
Now France has other ideas – President Macron pushed through reforms with the stroke of a pen and set the country on fire.
Switzerland with a stroke of the pen changed the Bank Rules Based Order and bankrupted the country – Cf267 billion.
Now US Climate Sec. Kerry says expect more Executive Orders, strokes of a pen.
In GB the Prime Minister is elected by the Members of Parliament, not the members of the general public.
Call them the climate war conscientious objectors.
Something fishy in this report….there is no actual reporting of the % for and % against.
“only 18% of Berlin’s eligible voters” supported the referendum — “Only 442,210 cast a vote in favor” — but how many cast a NO vote? What percentage of the eligible voters cast a NO vote?
Can someone please read a German papers and let us know the real results?
50.9% Yes
48.7% No
However 25% of the electorate were required to vote either way.
Although there was a narrow majority of votes in favor, the 442,210 of “yes” votes fell far short the 25% quorum of all eligible voters (607,518 votes) needed to make the referendum valid.
Yes: 442,210
No: 423,418
I’ve read the German press. Here’s a translation of the key part of one article
The referendum, according to which Berlin should become climate-neutral by 2030, has failed. According to the provisional result of all votes, the supporters achieved a narrow majority of 50.9 percent, but the required quorum was missed.
According to voting manager Stephan Bröchler, 442,210 yes votes were counted. The required quorum of 607,518 yes votes was clearly missed.
423,418 Berliners (48.7 percent) voted no. This is surprising given that experts expected opponents of the referendum would be more likely not to vote than to vote against it.
The turnout was 35.8 percent.
Bolding for the benefit of Nick Stokes. Note that there were about 0.4% spoilt ballot papers from the percentages. The vote followed a petition that garnered 260,000 signatures over 4 months. Interestingly the pattern of voting by district was very much a doughnut, with the centre of the city in favour, and the outskirts strongly against. Supposedly even the red-green city leadership thought the proposal was unworkable on so short a timescale.
https://www.rbb24.de/politik/beitrag/2023/03/volksentscheid-berlin-klimaneutral-2030-wahlsonntag.html
Link to German article autolabelled spam.
Corrections welcome.
It sounds like this was a vote outside the normal election cycle. (In the US there is the “real vote” election in November and primaries when the individual states choose to hold them. Sometimes non-candidate issues are snuck in.)
But unlike the US, the number of eligible voters, rather than just the actual votes, is considered in whether an issue passed or failed.
I’m guessing that the “25% of eligible voters” came from an attempt to not let a minority rule the majority of eligible voters? (And not somewhere I’d rather not think about.) 😎
One data point is not a trend.
#justsaying
But it is a resounding vote that people don’t want it or didn’t think it worth voting for. I’m sure those that don’t like the decision will be campaigning for another vote.
AGW advocates have always been a niche but very vocal and MSM supported group. People are tired of putting up with their crap that only leads to economic suicide with no upsides.
No matter how you slice and dice the numbers, only 18% supported the global climate crisis theory. 82% either rejected it outright or did not think it was credible enough to take action.
The horror! The horror!
Maybe it was bad timing relative to their latest utility bill.
Referenda is the worst way to get a quality decision on any matter. The Berliners who didn’t vote were the smart ones. If good decisions are the aim then elect independent, informed and intelligent representatives. And let them do their job.
Oh dear
A great result. Regions doing their bit to save the planet is nothing more than virtue signalling at the financial and social cost to the residents and businesses they are supposed to serve. I’m having the same argument with my local authority in North Wales.
Haven’t gone through all the comments yet but there’s bound to be a statistical quibble from Stoker Nick.