We have a representative form of government for a reason. Questions of this sort should never be left to a referendum - they are too complex to answer with simple "yes/no" answers.
The problem with this is that when the people start thinking that those representing them aren't really representing their interests anymore, but rather the interests of thoswho fund them, you are going to have this disconnect between the sovereign people and their representatives.
And that is going to leave a gap where the Brexiters and Trumps of the world are very, very happy to exist - they are feeding on the lowest common denominator of mass democracy. They are truly what those who founded our Republics feared when it comes to rule of the masses.
Referendums are foolish - but even more so in a political climate where there isn't any discernible connection between the "representatives" and the people.
I think you need to start a third Brexit thread of your own to really be effectual. :P
This thread is not really about Brexit. Feel free to not post in it if you find it overwhelming.
Which is the real breakfast thread. :huh:
Quote from: Berkut on June 26, 2016, 11:40:32 AM
This thread is not really about Brexit. Feel free to not post in it if you find it overwhelming.
:lol:
Quote from: Berkut on June 26, 2016, 11:40:32 AM
This thread is not really about Brexit. Feel free to not post in it if you find it overwhelming.
Then why'd you put Brexit in the title, Tim?
Yes and no. I'm in a bit of a quandary, as I'm horrified by the result ( my parents just stripped their grandchildren of the freedom to live and work in 27 countries because: foreigners) but am in favor of as much democracy as possible.
Having a referendum of this scale inside a not very good version of a sort of democracy like the UK might not be a very good idea, especially with a simple binary choice over a rather complex idea.
Although horrified personally, there's also a part of me that is quite delighted to see that the British political class has lost control of the outcome for a minute and been handed something of a bloody nose by an angry and poorly represented electorate.
Also fascinated to see if the people who angrily resisted rule by a distant unaccountable foreign elite will now rally and equally determinedly resist rule by a slightly less distant unaccountable domestic elite. Perhaps they will take back control in a far reaching reform and restructuring of the UK's democratic institutions. Or perhaps not.
I agree with you Berkut, referendums are a terrible way to resolve complex policy issues.
Referenda work *just fine* in Switzerland, where the populace is educated on the issues and has deep experience with handling major political decisions.
Quote from: Hamilcar on June 26, 2016, 12:01:23 PM
Referenda work *just fine* in Switzerland, where the populace is educated on the issues and has deep experience with handling major political decisions.
How does one judge when a populace is well educated on the issues?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 26, 2016, 12:02:53 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on June 26, 2016, 12:01:23 PM
Referenda work *just fine* in Switzerland, where the populace is educated on the issues and has deep experience with handling major political decisions.
How does one judge when a populace is well educated on the issues?
High rate of sensible outcomes. Example: a recent vote to extend everyone's right to paid vacation from 4 to 5 weeks failed. People were very cognizant that the economic damage outweighed the leisure time benefit.
If the outcome has an objective sensible outcome, why bother with the expense and risk of a referendum?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 26, 2016, 12:10:35 PM
If the outcome has an objective sensible outcome, why bother with the expense and risk of a referendum?
I'm not interested in playing the Yi game.
If you can show me another example of the Swiss form of government working anywhere please let me know. From what I can see people have been trying to replicate it for centuries and it has never worked. Sort of like non-USA countries trying to imitate our strong executive.
Besides did they not also have a similar result to a similar referendum lately about shutting down the free movement stuff? Or maybe that was the correct decision, I don't know much about it.
As anybody can tell from my posts in the Brexit thread I absolutely agree with Berkut on this. I live in a Referendum-happy state and generally it produces terrible results, both for the decisions reached and the perverse effect of representatives not wanting to actually make decisions. This kind of direct democracy has been pretty disastrous for California as well. But in the case of Texas and California these are fairly minor issues of state and local government. If the US was referendum happy we would have ceased to exist well before Napoleon was shipped off to Saint Helena.
Adopting this form of government is the death knell from the UK. Sad.
The English speaking world in general needs to move away from this binary politics. Even the campaigning for brexit showed it has really gone too far.
But then we have less chance than ever of getting AV or some other system so.... the English speaking world is doomed.
Makes sense to me to have a referendum on huge fundamental issues like being in the EU or not. I would have thought it highly inappropraite if Sweden hadn't had a referendum before we joined the EU.
As for complexity, this Brexit referendum had a very simple question, very easy to understand. The issue was perfect for a yes/no answer. The short term consequences (business as usual with a Remain, huge hit to the economy and huge uncertainties with a Leave) were well known, and whatever Bregret there is seems to be tied to the short term consequences.
Quote from: The Brain on June 26, 2016, 12:41:14 PM
As for complexity, this Brexit referendum had a very simple question, very easy to understand. The issue was perfect for a yes/no answer. The short term consequences (business as usual with a Remain, huge hit to the economy and huge uncertainties with a Leave) were well known, and whatever Bregret there is seems to be tied to the short term consequences.
The question was simple, but the issue complex. As far as I can tell one of the campaign issues that swung the vote to leave was immigration, along with some other vague appeals to emotion and mythology. Taking back control, Brexiteers suddenly interested in spending on the NHS and so on, all things that they have speedily and determinedly reversed on in the last 72 hours. If you voted Leave to end immigration, you are likely to be quite disappointed. The question wasn't "end immigration?" it was "leave the european union?".
I was in favor of remain, but for some fairly vague ideas of my own to do with federalism and fanciful notions of peace and prosperity.
Quote from: fromtia on June 26, 2016, 12:50:34 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 26, 2016, 12:41:14 PM
As for complexity, this Brexit referendum had a very simple question, very easy to understand. The issue was perfect for a yes/no answer. The short term consequences (business as usual with a Remain, huge hit to the economy and huge uncertainties with a Leave) were well known, and whatever Bregret there is seems to be tied to the short term consequences.
The question was simple, but the issue complex. As far as I can tell one of the campaign issues that swung the vote to leave was immigration, along with some other vague appeals to emotion and mythology. Taking back control, Brexiteers suddenly interested in spending on the NHS and so on, all things that they have speedily and determinedly reversed on in the last 72 hours. If you voted Leave to end immigration, you are likely to be quite disappointed. The question wasn't "end immigration?" it was "leave the european union?".
I was in favor of remain, but for some fairly vague ideas of my own to do with federalism and fanciful notions of peace and prosperity.
And the question was clearly stated on the ballot. Surely the Remain campaign had months to supply good arguments for staying in the EU.
Quote from: The Brain on June 26, 2016, 12:57:10 PM
And the question was clearly stated on the ballot. Surely the Remain campaign had months to supply good arguments for staying in the EU.
That was the mistake they made. They tried to come up with good arguments instead of good slogans. "Take control" blah. blah.
I've been somewhat impressed with north dakota's referenda results the past few years. but these were things like changing the constitution to ban abortion, whether to remove property taxes, allow walmart to have a pharmacy, allow corporate farming, etc. small issues issues for a backwater state
on a national level, the mass public shouldn't decide major political issues. they lack the experience and skill to decide correctly
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2016, 01:02:34 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 26, 2016, 12:57:10 PM
And the question was clearly stated on the ballot. Surely the Remain campaign had months to supply good arguments for staying in the EU.
That was the mistake they made. They tried to come up with good arguments instead of good slogans. "Take control" blah. blah.
I didn't follow the campaigns but I can certainly believe that the Remain campaign was crappy, judging by the magnitude of Bregret.
If people are complaining about the general public's ability to decide referendums then why are they okay with them deciding elections?
Quote from: The Brain on June 26, 2016, 12:57:10 PM
And the question was clearly stated on the ballot. Surely the Remain campaign had months to supply good arguments for staying in the EU.
Well that's the point of the discussion I think. Simple question, one would assume we lay out all the facts, examine them and make a decision. I don't think that's what just happened.
Remains campaign was heavy on good arguments and (imo obvs) good arguments, but those were trivial resources compared to the Leave campaigns "Look Immigrants!" and spirited story telling.
Quote from: PJL on June 26, 2016, 01:10:57 PM
If people are complaining about the general public's ability to decide referendums then why are they okay with them deciding elections?
Because they elect professional representatives. Or semi professional ones. Or amateurs. Oh, you know.
Quote from: fromtia on June 26, 2016, 01:13:50 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 26, 2016, 12:57:10 PM
And the question was clearly stated on the ballot. Surely the Remain campaign had months to supply good arguments for staying in the EU.
Well that's the point of the discussion I think. Simple question, one would assume we lay out all the facts, examine them and make a decision. I don't think that's what just happened.
Remains campaign was heavy on good arguments and (imo obvs) good arguments, but those were trivial resources compared to the Leave campaigns "Look Immigrants!" and spirited story telling.
Indeed.
Though Cameron and Osbourne had their fair share of stupidity, like the WW3 is a possibility etc. If they'd not relied on 'project fear' maybe they'd have not gotten so many peoples backs up.
Hell some of the Remain camp could have tried outlining some of the good things the EU is responsible for? :gasp:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/from-brexit-to-texit-renewed-calls-for-texas-secession-after-eu-vote/ar-AAhBJsh?ocid=ansmsnnews11
:lol:
Quote from: mongers on June 26, 2016, 01:18:38 PM
Indeed.
Though Cameron and Osbourne had their fair share of stupidity, like the WW3 is a possibility etc. If they'd not relied on 'project fear' maybe they'd have not gotten so many peoples backs up.
Hell some of the Remain camp could have tried outlining some of the good things the EU is responsible for? :gasp:
Agree. Remains ineptitude is cross party mind you. Labours performance on this topic was dismal and the rift between Labour and their traditional supporters on immigration has been a real problem here. I don't recall anyone making a good case for the EU to working people, country folk and duffers. Left them in the capable hands of the parade of horribles who will not now produce what they think they voted for.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 26, 2016, 01:24:15 PM
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/from-brexit-to-texit-renewed-calls-for-texas-secession-after-eu-vote/ar-AAhBJsh?ocid=ansmsnnews11
:lol:
Thing is, I don't think the country would have a problem with that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2016, 01:27:02 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 26, 2016, 01:24:15 PM
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/from-brexit-to-texit-renewed-calls-for-texas-secession-after-eu-vote/ar-AAhBJsh?ocid=ansmsnnews11
:lol:
Thing is, I don't think the country would have a problem with that.
We heeled them once, we'll do it again. The South will not rise again.
Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2016, 11:38:32 AM
I think you need to start a third Brexit thread of your own to really be effectual. :P
Hey, at least this one doesn't have a Timmay-like error in the thread title.
Quote from: LaCroix on June 26, 2016, 01:04:58 PM
... on a national level, the mass public shouldn't decide major political issues. they lack the experience and skill to decide correctly
Those that have the experience and skill don't decide correctly either. :hmm:
Quote from: Hamilcar on June 26, 2016, 12:01:23 PM
Referenda work *just fine* in Switzerland, where the populace is educated on the issues and has deep experience with handling major political decisions.
That's why you vote on banning the construction of minarets and on restricting inmigration by going against signed treaties with the EU? Don't pretend that your knees don't jerk as well.
Quote from: The Larch on June 26, 2016, 02:09:47 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on June 26, 2016, 12:01:23 PM
Referenda work *just fine* in Switzerland, where the populace is educated on the issues and has deep experience with handling major political decisions.
That's why you vote on banning the construction of minarets and on restricting inmigration by going against signed treaties with the EU? Don't pretend that your knees don't jerk as well.
These had effects that were way beyond what the voters actually wanted? Or do you just disagree with the voters on the issues?
Remain mistakenly ran a campaign on economic efficiency instead of emotion and realized it's error far too late. Well, to be fair they did that clip with Gordon Brown in the ruins of Coventry Cathedral that hit the right tone but it was too late by then. Emotion beats reason as a tool of persuasion.
We rationalize our emotional response after the fact. ^_^
Quote from: Hamilcar on June 26, 2016, 12:12:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 26, 2016, 12:10:35 PM
If the outcome has an objective sensible outcome, why bother with the expense and risk of a referendum?
I'm not interested in playing the Yi game.
Ok, but if you ever have an answer to the question I would be interested in hearing it.
Quote from: The Brain on June 26, 2016, 12:41:14 PM
Makes sense to me to have a referendum on huge fundamental issues like being in the EU or not. I would have thought it highly inappropraite if Sweden hadn't had a referendum before we joined the EU.
If the issue was "Should we join the EU or not" I would agree.
Leaving once joining is a vastly more complex question, and not one that lends itself to binary answers. The reality is that any informed answer for "leave" is almost certainly going to be of the form "Yes, leave, as long as..." which of course does not lend itself to a referendum at all.
Quote
As for complexity, this Brexit referendum had a very simple question, very easy to understand. The issue was perfect for a yes/no answer. The short term consequences (business as usual with a Remain, huge hit to the economy and huge uncertainties with a Leave) were well known, and whatever Bregret there is seems to be tied to the short term consequences.
The simplicity of the question hides the complexity of the issue.
Also, it is kind of stupid to have a "leave" vote be susceptible to a simple majority anyway. It should take a much greater weight to dissolve a complex union.
I would certainly not agree that a state should be allowed to leave the USA on a simple majority vote, for example. Or that we should modify the Constitution by a simple majority.
There are reasons we don't all just use simple democracy rather than representative republics.
The complexity of join and leave seem pretty comparable to me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2016, 03:44:29 PM
The complexity of join and leave seem pretty comparable to me.
Depends on whether the conditions for joining are already predetermined. Which iirc they are. In those circumstances the question is less complex because most of the variables are known. But with the leave vote there are numerous unknowns and a departure whose conditions needs to be negotiated. The kind of complexity which escapes the average voter it seems.
Quote from: Berkut on June 26, 2016, 03:40:08 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 26, 2016, 12:41:14 PM
Makes sense to me to have a referendum on huge fundamental issues like being in the EU or not. I would have thought it highly inappropraite if Sweden hadn't had a referendum before we joined the EU.
If the issue was "Should we join the EU or not" I would agree.
Leaving once joining is a vastly more complex question, and not one that lends itself to binary answers. The reality is that any informed answer for "leave" is almost certainly going to be of the form "Yes, leave, as long as..." which of course does not lend itself to a referendum at all.
Quote
As for complexity, this Brexit referendum had a very simple question, very easy to understand. The issue was perfect for a yes/no answer. The short term consequences (business as usual with a Remain, huge hit to the economy and huge uncertainties with a Leave) were well known, and whatever Bregret there is seems to be tied to the short term consequences.
The simplicity of the question hides the complexity of the issue.
Also, it is kind of stupid to have a "leave" vote be susceptible to a simple majority anyway. It should take a much greater weight to dissolve a complex union.
I would certainly not agree that a state should be allowed to leave the USA on a simple majority vote, for example. Or that we should modify the Constitution by a simple majority.
There are reasons we don't all just use simple democracy rather than representative republics.
I don't see a fundamental difference between join and leave.
Neither Sweden nor the UK uses a simple majority referendum to decide whether to join or leave the EU. In both cases the referendum was non-binding. Parliament/Riksdag deciding on this kind of issue without having an explicit OK from the people seems unhealthy to me.
Quote from: The Brain on June 26, 2016, 03:52:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 26, 2016, 03:40:08 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 26, 2016, 12:41:14 PM
Makes sense to me to have a referendum on huge fundamental issues like being in the EU or not. I would have thought it highly inappropraite if Sweden hadn't had a referendum before we joined the EU.
If the issue was "Should we join the EU or not" I would agree.
Leaving once joining is a vastly more complex question, and not one that lends itself to binary answers. The reality is that any informed answer for "leave" is almost certainly going to be of the form "Yes, leave, as long as..." which of course does not lend itself to a referendum at all.
Quote
As for complexity, this Brexit referendum had a very simple question, very easy to understand. The issue was perfect for a yes/no answer. The short term consequences (business as usual with a Remain, huge hit to the economy and huge uncertainties with a Leave) were well known, and whatever Bregret there is seems to be tied to the short term consequences.
The simplicity of the question hides the complexity of the issue.
Also, it is kind of stupid to have a "leave" vote be susceptible to a simple majority anyway. It should take a much greater weight to dissolve a complex union.
I would certainly not agree that a state should be allowed to leave the USA on a simple majority vote, for example. Or that we should modify the Constitution by a simple majority.
There are reasons we don't all just use simple democracy rather than representative republics.
I don't see a fundamental difference between join and leave.
Neither Sweden nor the UK uses a simple majority referendum to decide whether to join or leave the EU. In both cases the referendum was non-binding. Parliament/Riksdag deciding on this kind of issue without having an explicit OK from the people seems unhealthy to me.
Agreed.
I support referendums for big constitutional changes like joining/leaving the EU, becoming independent, changing the voting system however complicated the issue. And for all the little stories about Bregret it's not like everything that's happened wasn't warned about by Remain. The people listened and decided, with glorious elan, 'fuck it'.
The people we elect have their power for a turn, it's not for them to fundamentally change the rules of the game forever more.
In the United States, facing a similar situation, I think I'd prefer membership in or out of such an organization be subject to the same requirements as a constitutional amendment--approval of 3/4ths of the State legislatures. This insures buy-in from the vast majority of the Federal subdivisions, and thus the vast majority of the people. The need for a referendum is simply not present.
As it is under U.S. law we could, theoretically, join the EU with the simple treaty-making power of the President and Senate; but to actually execute most requirements of EU regulation, and make them binding on the States (the only way to make them binding at all) you'd need either a series of constitutional amendments, or one really long/complex one.
In general I don't think referendum are appropriate at all, frankly. Swiss cantons and the Swiss confederation are interesting counterpoints, and there's other examples from history (like the New England towns ran by town hall meetings), I think it's generally something that won't work in most places and the UK is one where it doesn't, at all.
If they had to do this, I would've preferred the referendum be:
Option A: Should we maintain our current relationship with the EU?
Option B: Should we pursue leaving the EU and determining the future relationship with the EU as non-members?
Option B would then be contingent on a unanimous vote by the devolved parliaments of NI, Scotland, and Wales. If that doesn't happen, then it goes no further.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 26, 2016, 04:14:57 PMAgreed.
I support referendums for big constitutional changes like joining/leaving the EU, becoming independent, changing the voting system however complicated the issue. And for all the little stories about Bregret it's not like everything that's happened wasn't warned about by Remain. The people listened and decided, with glorious elan, 'fuck it'.
The people we elect have their power for a turn, it's not for them to fundamentally change the rules of the game forever more.
Except they don't, they are subject to elections at regular and irregular intervals. If enough constituencies support a thing, Parliament would have to recognize it. I think Cameron should've taken this approach:
1. Promise to hold a
conscience vote on whether or not to hold an EU in/out referendum. If that doesn't have a majority, then it shouldn't be held, simple reality.
2. If it does pass, then have the referendum I proposed above.
Cameron himself did not support Brexit, but supported the referendum. That's ass backwards, he should've said that their roles as MPs means they should recognize the desire of people to debate the issue--and to hold a free vote in Parliament on whether a referendum should be held. Instead he brow-beat many remain conservatives to support the referendum as a political ploy to deflate an attack on his party's power base from the UKIP. A gravely stupid move, and probably unnecessary, since it looks like UKIP doesn't just grab disaffected Tories in any case.
I think it's arguably you could politically stage an "out" of the Brexit vote by invoking national unity, the next PM could make the argument that due to the importance of keeping the country unified, he would seek approval from the devolved legislatures before invoking Article 50. Then when Scotland and NI predictably vote against leaving the EU, he can say that since he as Prime Minister of a United Kingdom, has a responsibility to that union's integrity, he cannot proceed with invoking Article 50.
Quote from: PJL on June 26, 2016, 01:10:57 PM
If people are complaining about the general public's ability to decide referendums then why are they okay with them deciding elections?
Well that is the entire question between republican government and direct democracy isn't it? Since this has been debated for thousands of years I am not sure I need to explain it.
But I feel like I have stated the problems with direct democracy several times already recently.
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2016, 04:43:14 PM
Quote from: PJL on June 26, 2016, 01:10:57 PM
If people are complaining about the general public's ability to decide referendums then why are they okay with them deciding elections?
Well that is the entire question between republican government and direct democracy isn't it? Since this has been debated for thousands of years I am not sure I need to explain it.
But I feel like I have stated the problems with direct democracy several times already recently.
Not just republican government. The British Parliamentary system was equally well equipped to deal with the issue. There was no need for this vote.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 26, 2016, 04:21:27 PM
1. Promise to hold a conscience vote on whether or not to hold an EU in/out referendum. If that doesn't have a majority, then it shouldn't be held, simple reality.
Membership of the EU will be a conscience issue for some MPs who feel very strongly about it (eg. Labour outers) but it should be something the main parties actually have policies on and generally try to whip the results. I think free votes are best left for moral issues like abortion or the death penalty, not what you've all said is a complicated issue of membership of a customs union.
By contrast I don't think those moral issues, or issues of rights should ever go to a referendum.
QuoteCameron himself did not support Brexit, but supported the referendum. That's ass backwards, he should've said that their roles as MPs means they should recognize the desire of people to debate the issue--and to hold a free vote in Parliament on whether a referendum should be held. Instead he brow-beat many remain conservatives to support the referendum as a political ploy to deflate an attack on his party's power base from the UKIP. A gravely stupid move, and probably unnecessary, since it looks like UKIP doesn't just grab disaffected Tories in any case.
That's not entirely fair. Europe ended the career of Thatcher, Major and now Cameron. It was the reason why the Tories chose such hopeless leaders as Hague and IDS. It isn't the threat from UKIP which initially mainly hit the Tories that got them worried, it's been the major division in the party since Maastricht at the earliest. I would guess that most Tory MPs voted Leave (even a few who were publicly Remain) and the Tory grassroots were mostly Leave.
Cameron won the leadership through a campaign that was all very optimistic and cheerful - but strongly Eurosceptic, so he pulled the Tories out the European People's Party and founded their own group with some fairly dodgy Eastern European parties like Law and Order. Cameron himself has always been fairly Eurosceptic it was one of the reasons the party tolerated him 'modernising' them on social issues and, initially, proposing to match Labour's economic plans. In 2013 a large part of the reason he promised a renegotiation followed by a referendum was UKIP but internal party demands having had to compromise on lots as part of the coalition were also present. He doesn't take all the blame for the rest of Europe not thinking he could really lose this vote.
The other thing is the idea of a European referendum has been percolating for a while. Tony Blair promised one on the constitution, which he would've lost. But luckily the French and the Dutch ended that. Cameron promised one on any further treaty changes. Gordon Brown signed Lisbon (behind closed doors, not at the main ceremony) and said it wasn't anything like the constitution so there was no need to have a referendum. The 2010 Lib Dems said that we should put the issue to rest forever by having a referendum on whether we're in, in which case we're committed members, or out. When Cameron won in 2010 there was a lot of pressure for a referendum on Lisbon by the Tory grassroots and a lot of anger when he very sensibly said it's already been signed. So this has been building for some time and it's out of popular pressure as well. It's still a bit of a shock but leaving the EU has been in the UK mainstream for the past 20-25 years.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2016, 03:44:29 PM
The complexity of join and leave seem pretty comparable to me.
I don't think that is the case at all. Undoing a union is a hell of a lot harder than getting in to begin with...
Getting divorced is a hell of a lot more complicated than getting married.
:lol:
True enough. Easy to get married, divorces can be brutal.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 26, 2016, 11:59:07 AM
I agree with you Berkut, referendums are a terrible way to resolve complex policy issues.
:nelson:
As if the people were nothing but a hodge-podge of imbeciles we shouldn't consult. Is it any wonder they so often turn against your kind?
G.
Quote from: Berkut on June 26, 2016, 11:37:04 AM
We have a representative form of government for a reason. Questions of this sort should never be left to a referendum - they are too complex to answer with simple "yes/no" answers.
The problem with this is that when the people start thinking that those representing them aren't really representing their interests anymore, but rather the interests of thoswho fund them, you are going to have this disconnect between the sovereign people and their representatives.
And that is going to leave a gap where the Brexiters and Trumps of the world are very, very happy to exist - they are feeding on the lowest common denominator of mass democracy. They are truly what those who founded our Republics feared when it comes to rule of the masses.
Referendums are foolish - but even more so in a political climate where there isn't any discernible connection between the "representatives" and the people.
Absolute monarchy FTW?
Berk, you are a fucking retard.
What really happened is that free people don't want no bureocrats in Brussels dictating policy to their countries.
EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU, and the globalized world the elites in the West want to create only benefits the elite, not the hard working, tax paying, law abiding citizens of the western countries being overrun by 3rd world immigration.
Suck it up and accept that the people has spoken. And come this novemenber, get ready to begin the rebuilding of America and the reset of the last 8 years of "fundamental transformation".
Democracy FTW!
Quote from: Siege on June 26, 2016, 10:16:14 PM
Absolute monarchy FTW?
Berk, you are a fucking retard.
What really happened is that free people don't want no bureocrats in Brussels dictating policy to their countries.
EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU, and the globalized world the elites in the West want to create only benefits the elite, not the hard working, tax paying, law abiding citizens of the western countries being overrun by 3rd world immigration.
Suck it up and accept that the people has spoken. And come this novemenber, get ready to begin the rebuilding of America and the reset of the last 8 years of "fundamental transformation".
Democracy FTW!
You're a bot dude.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2016, 10:18:35 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 26, 2016, 10:16:14 PM
Absolute monarchy FTW?
Berk, you are a fucking retard.
What really happened is that free people don't want no bureocrats in Brussels dictating policy to their countries.
EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU, and the globalized world the elites in the West want to create only benefits the elite, not the hard working, tax paying, law abiding citizens of the western countries being overrun by 3rd world immigration.
Suck it up and accept that the people has spoken. And come this novemenber, get ready to begin the rebuilding of America and the reset of the last 8 years of "fundamental transformation".
Democracy FTW!
You're a bot dude.
Wat the hell is that?
Quote from: Siege on June 26, 2016, 10:20:48 PM
Wat the hell is that?
Software that automatically duplicates pre-set functions on the internet.
He's a good example of why you shouldn't spend too much time in combat, probably has had 5-6 TBIs on top of intrinsic low IQ.
I miss the old Siege, who told us fun stories, occasionally had drunken ramblings. The new Siege just parrots Breitbart. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2016, 10:25:22 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 26, 2016, 10:20:48 PM
Wat the hell is that?
Software that automatically duplicates pre-set functions on the internet.
Sorry bro, i don;t have much times to post these days.
I know Valmy is pissed off because I don't respond to his posts. Some others probably feel the same way.
I can only drive-by-post. I read an interesting thread and say my opinion, Siege Style (tm), but I cannot engage in real conversations the way we used to. Too friggin busy. I am in the middle of my PCS move to Fort Benning, and I normally post from my phone. This is the first time I have opened my laptop in ages.
Quote from: Grallon on June 26, 2016, 09:44:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 26, 2016, 11:59:07 AM
I agree with you Berkut, referendums are a terrible way to resolve complex policy issues.
:nelson:
As if the people were nothing but a hodge-podge of imbeciles we shouldn't consult. Is it any wonder they so often turn against your kind?
G.
The nice thing about general elections is that people have a variety of things to consider when casting their ballot. I understand why you feel aggrieved by that sort of process being a one issue person yourself.
Quote from: Siege on June 26, 2016, 10:36:00 PM
Sorry bro, i don;t have much times to post these days.
I know Valmy is pissed off because I don't respond to his posts. Some others probably feel the same way.
I can only drive-by-post. I read an interesting thread and say my opinion, Siege Style (tm), but I cannot engage in real conversations the way we used to. Too friggin busy. I am in the middle of my PCS move to Fort Benning, and I normally post from my phone. This is the first time I have opened my laptop in ages.
Human contact!
That's cool dude, but seriously lose the Breitbart boilerplate.
Quote from: Grallon on June 26, 2016, 09:44:40 PM
As if the people were nothing but a hodge-podge of imbeciles we shouldn't consult. Is it any wonder they so often turn against your kind?
They should be consulted. But not in a way that has led to disaster for centuries. Generally doing the same bad idea over and over again expecting a different result is not smart.
I haven't seen the voters of Canada turn against the CC's kind much. What is his kind anyway? Basketball fans?
Quote from: Siege on June 26, 2016, 10:36:00 PM
I know Valmy is pissed off because I don't respond to his posts. Some others probably feel the same way.
I can only drive-by-post. I read an interesting thread and say my opinion, Siege Style (tm), but I cannot engage in real conversations the way we used to. Too friggin busy. I am in the middle of my PCS move to Fort Benning, and I normally post from my phone. This is the first time I have opened my laptop in ages.
It is just frustrating. You come in posting some stuff that I want to talk to you about. I respond and then nothing. Then a few days later you pop in again saying basically the same stuff as if I never posted a rebuttal :mad:
Quote from: Berkut on June 26, 2016, 11:37:04 AM
Referendums are foolish - but even more so in a political climate where there isn't any discernible connection between the "representatives" and the people.
Ironically, though, such a climate is exactly the environment in which people want to have referendums. If you think your representatives actually represent your interests, your values, and your concerns, referendums don't have that much appeal, because you don't need them to have a voice; but when large numbers of people don't feel any connection with those who are supposed to represent them, they'll see referendums as means by which to gain a voice.
Of course, commentary by those who agree with the representatives on a given issue that the people at large are too stupid, or too bigoted, or just too busy to be well enough informed to make decisions on their own probably doesn't help increase people's confidence that their representatives truly represent them.
Quote from: dps on June 26, 2016, 11:15:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 26, 2016, 11:37:04 AM
Referendums are foolish - but even more so in a political climate where there isn't any discernible connection between the "representatives" and the people.
Ironically, though, such a climate is exactly the environment in which people want to have referendums. If you think your representatives actually represent your interests, your values, and your concerns, referendums don't have that much appeal, because you don't need them to have a voice; but when large numbers of people don't feel any connection with those who are supposed to represent them, they'll see referendums as means by which to gain a voice.
That is exactly my point.
Referendum's are a pretty terrible way to make policy decisions (hence the reason Western liberal society uses representative government rather than direct democracy) but become incredibly enticing when we have a situation where people stop feeling like they are actually being represented (as we do now).
Maybe I didn't articulate this well, but what I was saying was that this outcome is one of many negative results of a system where the cost of being a politician has become so great that only those who can attract the deep pockets of the ultra wealthy have any chance of raising the funds needed, and they as a whole then respond to the desires of the donors rather than the voters.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2016, 06:21:11 AM
Bots don't misspell words.
They do if they are trying to pretend to be hruman.
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2016, 06:01:23 AM
Maybe I didn't articulate this well, but what I was saying was that this outcome is one of many negative results of a system where the cost of being a politician has become so great that only those who can attract the deep pockets of the ultra wealthy have any chance of raising the funds needed, and they as a whole then respond to the desires of the donors rather than the voters.
The UK has a completely different political financing system and the need to raise funds significantly reduced from the US system. I don't think the US talking points transfer well to the UK system.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 27, 2016, 08:37:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2016, 06:01:23 AM
Maybe I didn't articulate this well, but what I was saying was that this outcome is one of many negative results of a system where the cost of being a politician has become so great that only those who can attract the deep pockets of the ultra wealthy have any chance of raising the funds needed, and they as a whole then respond to the desires of the donors rather than the voters.
The UK has a completely different political financing system and the need to raise funds significantly reduced from the US system. I don't think the US talking points transfer well to the UK system.
I would love to hear more about this from a non-US perspective, but that is not at all the message I think I've heard from around the internets - that dis-connect where the voters don't seem to believe that the political establishment represents them anymore seems pretty consistent to me...
The problem is that nobody can really articulate what the establishment would be doing differently if it did represent them. :hmm:
If they could well all this would be very straightforward.
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2016, 08:40:43 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 27, 2016, 08:37:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2016, 06:01:23 AM
Maybe I didn't articulate this well, but what I was saying was that this outcome is one of many negative results of a system where the cost of being a politician has become so great that only those who can attract the deep pockets of the ultra wealthy have any chance of raising the funds needed, and they as a whole then respond to the desires of the donors rather than the voters.
The UK has a completely different political financing system and the need to raise funds significantly reduced from the US system. I don't think the US talking points transfer well to the UK system.
I would love to hear more about this from a non-US perspective, but that is not at all the message I think I've heard from around the internets - that dis-connect where the voters don't seem to believe that the political establishment represents them anymore seems pretty consistent to me...
In the case of Spain, our campaign finance laws are pretty stringent, and there's little need to raise extra funds. Of course, that doesn't prevent some of our parties (like PP) from being caught in the act of illegal campaign financing, but critique over here is how mainstream parties are a very closed cadre taken over (allegedly) by oligarch interests. For example former politicians regularly end up employed in the boards of big Spanish companies, for hefty salaries. This raises up quite a few eyebrows, and to be honest is a pretty blatant form of post-facto bribe. "Be good to us and there'll be a fat wage for you at the end of it all".
There's also the blatant corruption. The fact every other week some case surfaces of a public official taking money in exchange of political favors to private interests, greatly diminishes the trust of the public in the institutions.
But hey, it's probably not that important, since we just re-elected the same damn fuckers once again. :bleeding:
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2016, 08:40:43 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 27, 2016, 08:37:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2016, 06:01:23 AM
Maybe I didn't articulate this well, but what I was saying was that this outcome is one of many negative results of a system where the cost of being a politician has become so great that only those who can attract the deep pockets of the ultra wealthy have any chance of raising the funds needed, and they as a whole then respond to the desires of the donors rather than the voters.
The UK has a completely different political financing system and the need to raise funds significantly reduced from the US system. I don't think the US talking points transfer well to the UK system.
I would love to hear more about this from a non-US perspective, but that is not at all the message I think I've heard from around the internets - that dis-connect where the voters don't seem to believe that the political establishment represents them anymore seems pretty consistent to me...
The UK has strict spending limits on campaigns. That the political establishment is still disconnnected from the voters does not mean that, as you posted, "this outcome is one of many negative results of a system where the cost of being a politician has become so great that only those who can attract the deep pockets of the ultra wealthy have any chance of raising the funds needed, and they as a whole then respond to the desires of the donors rather than the voters."
Shrug, you are focusing on the detail rather than the message, which perhaps is my fault in that I provided the detail that is relevant close to me, but my point is that Brexit, and Trump, and Sanders, and all these movements are part and parcel of the same thing - a "Fuck You" from voters to the establishment. A message that there are a lot of people out there willing to make change, even radical change, for it's own sake, since the status quo seems rather hopeless.
Change is needed, and the establishment won't give us the change that is needed, so fuck it - we will just make ANY change, and damn the consequences.
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2016, 09:00:29 AM
Shrug, you are focusing on the detail rather than the message, which perhaps is my fault in that I provided the detail that is relevant close to me, but my point is that Brexit, and Trump, and Sanders, and all these movements are part and parcel of the same thing - a "Fuck You" from voters to the establishment. A message that there are a lot of people out there willing to make change, even radical change, for it's own sake, since the status quo seems rather hopeless.
Change is needed, and the establishment won't give us the change that is needed, so fuck it - we will just make ANY change, and damn the consequences.
Yes. But what changes are needed? If we could even get a few sane people to agree on that it wouldn't take too long to get the establishment on board. They do like to continue being the establishment and all.
Random rage combined with vagueness is mostly what we have.
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2016, 09:00:29 AM
Shrug, you are focusing on the detail rather than the message, which perhaps is my fault in that I provided the detail that is relevant close to me, but my point is that Brexit, and Trump, and Sanders, and all these movements are part and parcel of the same thing - a "Fuck You" from voters to the establishment. A message that there are a lot of people out there willing to make change, even radical change, for it's own sake, since the status quo seems rather hopeless.
Change is needed, and the establishment won't give us the change that is needed, so fuck it - we will just make ANY change, and damn the consequences.
I can certainly agree with that general sentiment. I just don't think campaign finance plays that much of a part - at least in Europe.
I think that, in general, our politicians have taken popular support for granted. Austerity in Spain, for example, has done a lot of damage and it was very naive to consider that there wouldn't be a reaction to it, and the tone-deaf way it has been implemented has made things even worse. There are lots of people over here with very little to lose now, that believe that politicians don't give a fuck about the "little people" anymore, and that are willing to try anything.
Incidentally our local politicians also doubled down on the "We do these nasty things because Europe" message.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2016, 09:17:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2016, 09:00:29 AM
Shrug, you are focusing on the detail rather than the message, which perhaps is my fault in that I provided the detail that is relevant close to me, but my point is that Brexit, and Trump, and Sanders, and all these movements are part and parcel of the same thing - a "Fuck You" from voters to the establishment. A message that there are a lot of people out there willing to make change, even radical change, for it's own sake, since the status quo seems rather hopeless.
Change is needed, and the establishment won't give us the change that is needed, so fuck it - we will just make ANY change, and damn the consequences.
Yes. But what changes are needed? If we could even get a few sane people to agree on that it wouldn't take too long to get the establishment on board. They do like to continue being the establishment and all.
Random rage combined with vagueness is mostly what we have.
That's why I elect politicians, to solve problems. :P
I guess that if you could magically solve the middle-class crunch most of these would go away.
British parties do hold fundraisers and such to raise party funds, but it's a different beast than in the United States. I think remnants of the class system and the greater power that elites in Britain have always had are part of the anti-establishment anger.
How many guys who have worked on docks, in mines, or in factories are in Parliament at the moment? A lot of politicians are from traditional upper middle class backgrounds, and many of the ones who are not have spent essentially their entire adult lives working inside the party. I think that just like in America a "normal guy" running for election and winning a seat is pretty damn rare.
In America money is one of the biggest reasons for this, since our system of primaries is a lot more democratic, but a lot of the whole "political elite culture" is present here too. People who get support from state level party organizations to run for a House seat are generally connected--often through going to an Ivy League school, frequently having a J.D. and having worked for a connected law firm or done a prestigious clerkship or etc.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2016, 09:17:58 AM
Random rage combined with vagueness is mostly what we have.
Ding ding ding. I think a lot of people are just plain dissatisfied, with no reason to pin it on, and are looking for reasons after the fact.
Part of the problems in Britain date back to the poll tax. As you may recall it was rejected by the people (because it was an outstandingly stupid idea) and led to the downfall of Mrs Thatcher. The new government replaced it with the Council Tax, to ensure that the Council tax was accepted it was set at a low level. As a consequence the share of local government expenses borne by central government increased considerably. He who pays the piper calls the tune, the transfer in who was paying also led to great declines in local government power (this had started already due to Mrs Thatcher's controlling nature). The role of local councillor became less desirable and prestigious, the proportion of ordinary folk with good will in councils declined and that of political hacks went up. These councils used to be the recruitment and training ground for future MPs, that role is now much reduced with a greater proportion of MPs coming from distant political elites.
Ah, this guy is great. :lol:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEALC1z3QG8
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2016, 12:25:40 PM
Ah, this guy is great. :lol:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEALC1z3QG8
Quite amusing, I must admit, despite a couple of annoying bits.
Incidentally was thinking about this again and I think the real message of Brexit is that we're in a moment of an English nationalist moment (and I'm Irish enough not to mean nationalist in a perjorative sense). I think that in some ways it's an incredibly exciting and important fight that we're now facing to define quite what we mean by Englishness because what's clear is that the English now want a voice.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 26, 2016, 12:02:53 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on June 26, 2016, 12:01:23 PM
Referenda work *just fine* in Switzerland, where the populace is educated on the issues and has deep experience with handling major political decisions.
How does one judge when a populace is well educated on the issues?
When the majority of people agree with me.
Quote from: fromtia on June 26, 2016, 11:55:46 AM
Perhaps they will take back control in a far reaching reform and restructuring of the UK's democratic institutions.
Will they storm Windsor castle? ;)
Quote from: Tyr on June 26, 2016, 12:33:22 PM
the English speaking world is doomed.
:cheers: :showoff: :yeah: :frog:
Quote from: 11B4V on June 26, 2016, 01:31:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2016, 01:27:02 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 26, 2016, 01:24:15 PM
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/from-brexit-to-texit-renewed-calls-for-texas-secession-after-eu-vote/ar-AAhBJsh?ocid=ansmsnnews11
:lol:
Thing is, I don't think the country would have a problem with that.
We heeled them once, we'll do it again. The South will not rise again.
Vancouver island also wants to secede now, apparently. The Front National wants to push a Frexit of their own. Other movements seemed galvanized at first, until the negative effects hit them. Sorta like Marty cheering for Trump-likes, until he realized what that would cost him.
Quote from: fromtia on June 26, 2016, 01:13:50 PM
Remains campaign was heavy on good arguments and (imo obvs) good arguments, but those were trivial resources compared to the Leave campaigns "Look Immigrants!" and spirited story telling.
did the Remain campaing even tried to counter these arguments?
I understand the government employees could not contribute one way or another for the last 4 weeks, but it should have been pretty easy to counter the facts about immigration and 350 00 000 GBP more per week in NHS.
Quote from: Berkut on June 26, 2016, 03:40:08 PM
The simplicity of the question hides the complexity of the issue.
True, but you could use the same argument for any kind of vote.
Look at your Presidential election. One could argue voting from Trump or voting for Clinton has a lot more consequences than simply voting for more govt spending or less.
There are very complex issues being debatted currently in your country. Trump has a lot of ideas that appear challenging, even interesting for many of your co-citizens. They also appear repugnant to many others.
Immigration, religious/racial profiling, discrediting judiciary officials on their origins, paying back the debt in 8 years, etc, etc.
I don't think you could find 90% of Americans who totally understand the consequences of these questions. I don't 90% of Canadians truly understand that, even if many here appreciate Trump's policies, while never willing to admit it publicly (they may not be too concerned about Mexicans though...). Certainly, most of Trudeau's supporters did not understand the consequences of his policies, yet voted for the moron.
US, Canada, and probably European countries too, when you make a vox populi and ask people who are their "Prime Minister", who is Minister of Finance, Economy, etc, they generally can't answer. Only a minority is able to.
A lot more people know the current contenders of The Voice and other crappy shows.
Quote
Also, it is kind of stupid to have a "leave" vote be susceptible to a simple majority anyway. It should take a much greater weight to dissolve a complex union.
Nah. Unless there are pre-established rules, from a long time, about what kind of majority it takes to make various changes (like repealling a law, changing a Constitution, etc), it should be 50%+1 as it's the basis for our democracy.
Quote
I would certainly not agree that a state should be allowed to leave the USA on a simple majority vote, for example. Or that we should modify the Constitution by a simple majority.
Leaving the USA? I think it's been attempted once. Don't think most of them are eager to try again.
Btw, what was the required majority of each Colony to leave the British Empire? And the US Congress did not wait for the Canadian colonies to approve secession before invading and redacting provisions to include us in your country. If any vote had taken place, it would have been with the British troops expelled from Quebec and under the American army's oversight.
As for the Constitution, I think you have defined pretty clear rules since the beginning, and every founding and later States joining the US agreed to the same rules. Unlike the current Canadian constitution.
Quote
There are reasons we don't all just use simple democracy rather than representative republics.
yes, on that you are right. On top of the complexity of having so many people vote on every law, there are obvious issues of uneducated people not understanding what they vote on.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2016, 01:40:37 PM
Incidentally was thinking about this again and I think the real message of Brexit is that we're in a moment of an English nationalist moment (and I'm Irish enough not to mean nationalist in a perjorative sense). I think that in some ways it's an incredibly exciting and important fight that we're now facing to define quite what we mean by Englishness because what's clear is that the English now want a voice.
I am not sure what you mean. Last time I checked the British Parliament was still functioning.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 27, 2016, 11:10:05 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2016, 01:40:37 PM
Incidentally was thinking about this again and I think the real message of Brexit is that we're in a moment of an English nationalist moment (and I'm Irish enough not to mean nationalist in a perjorative sense). I think that in some ways it's an incredibly exciting and important fight that we're now facing to define quite what we mean by Englishness because what's clear is that the English now want a voice.
I am not sure what you mean. Last time I checked the British Parliament was still functioning.
I think he means that the English are reaching the point where they realise that Britain != England (even though the English parliament became the British parliament, etc etc). Caused by devolution: the Scots have Holyrood (?), Northern-Ireland has it's thing, even Wales has gotten some sort of regional representative body. England didn't. It's in a bit of odd state as England is the entity that basically conquered and is also so much bigger than all others that the overlap between England and Britain is very high (and in the rest of the world probably close to 1:1).
but sheilbh will need to confirm/refute this as I'm speculating.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 28, 2016, 03:22:13 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 27, 2016, 11:10:05 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2016, 01:40:37 PM
Incidentally was thinking about this again and I think the real message of Brexit is that we're in a moment of an English nationalist moment (and I'm Irish enough not to mean nationalist in a perjorative sense). I think that in some ways it's an incredibly exciting and important fight that we're now facing to define quite what we mean by Englishness because what's clear is that the English now want a voice.
I am not sure what you mean. Last time I checked the British Parliament was still functioning.
I think he means that the English are reaching the point where they realise that Britain != England (even though the English parliament became the British parliament, etc etc). Caused by devolution: the Scots have Holyrood (?), Northern-Ireland has it's thing, even Wales has gotten some sort of regional representative body. England didn't. It's in a bit of odd state as England is the entity that basically conquered and is also so much bigger than all others that the overlap between England and Britain is very high (and in the rest of the world probably close to 1:1).
but sheilbh will need to confirm/refute this as I'm speculating.
Conquered is a bit of strange way of describing what happened to Scotland. :P
Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2016, 03:34:56 AM
Conquered is a bit of strange way of describing what happened to Scotland. :P
not all conquests need to happen at bayonet's point. The Scots may have gotten a better deal than most of the conquered but their state was wiped of the map just the same.