|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On June 25 2016 07:40 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 07:39 Deleuze wrote:On June 25 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 07:20 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 25 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 07:01 Deleuze wrote:On June 25 2016 06:58 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 06:54 FlaShFTW wrote:On June 24 2016 17:28 hfglgg wrote:On June 24 2016 17:26 FlaShFTW wrote:
[quote]
because thats literally how a democracy works. majority wins. it doesnt. Democracy: control of an organization or group by the majority of its members. >50% = majority. Democracy how again? Um....here in the US we require a two thirds majority to pull shit of this level. We do not allow tyranny of the majority to, say for instance, create new states or amend the constitution. There's a petition to this effect that no-one noticed until this morning I love all the people who are experts on how democracy works and don’t understand the basic concept of tyranny of the majority and that is destroys unions. But hey, you got 1% more than the other side, I guess that is a mandate for this crazy thing that will alter the very fabric of the nation. The vote is over and its done, but whoever said it could be 50% to be valid an idiot. I don't think it's an issue of the dangers of tyranny of the majority (there's no clear majority attempting to oppress a minority). It's an issue of the dangers of making large changes based on a majority that can change with the winds (like you said, for countries with written constitutions status quo is generally stronger than a simple majority when trying to change it). In this case you have 16 million being told having their lives altered and rights they previously enjoyed voided by 17 million. I'm not going to say that its oppression, but I doubt it is going to be fun. Or that the 16 million people are going be passive about their unhappiness once they catch their breath. As mandates go, its pretty weak for the level of change it is imposing on the losing side. The gross population of the UK is 65m. It's a lot of people to have their lives altered by 17m In the US, we have 9 (well, 8 now) people that we never elected affect our lives in numerous ways every day
They have courts in the UK too, with judges. From my understanding, they are not elected by the general public. And we voted on the people who appointed those judges, because electing judges is not a great plan.
|
On June 25 2016 07:39 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 07:20 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 25 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 07:01 Deleuze wrote:On June 25 2016 06:58 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 06:54 FlaShFTW wrote:On June 24 2016 17:28 hfglgg wrote:On June 24 2016 17:26 FlaShFTW wrote:On June 24 2016 17:21 Lebesgue wrote:
[quote]
Spot on.
What a f***ing mess this is. And that's why referendums with 50% thresholds are useless. A higher margin should be required for such a momentous decisions...
because thats literally how a democracy works. majority wins. it doesnt. Democracy: control of an organization or group by the majority of its members. >50% = majority. Democracy how again? Um....here in the US we require a two thirds majority to pull shit of this level. We do not allow tyranny of the majority to, say for instance, create new states or amend the constitution. There's a petition to this effect that no-one noticed until this morning I love all the people who are experts on how democracy works and don’t understand the basic concept of tyranny of the majority and that is destroys unions. But hey, you got 1% more than the other side, I guess that is a mandate for this crazy thing that will alter the very fabric of the nation. The vote is over and its done, but whoever said it could be 50% to be valid an idiot. I don't think it's an issue of the dangers of tyranny of the majority (there's no clear majority attempting to oppress a minority). It's an issue of the dangers of making large changes based on a majority that can change with the winds (like you said, for countries with written constitutions status quo is generally stronger than a simple majority when trying to change it). In this case you have 16 million being told having their lives altered and rights they previously enjoyed voided by 17 million. I'm not going to say that its oppression, but I doubt it is going to be fun. Or that the 16 million people are going be passive about their unhappiness once they catch their breath. As mandates go, its pretty weak for the level of change it is imposing on the losing side. The gross population of the UK is 65m. It's a lot of people to have their lives altered by 17m
That's only really an issue if you think those not voting at all favor more one side than the other. Is there some clear reason to think a lot more "Stay"s stayed home than "Leave"s?
|
On June 25 2016 07:40 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 07:39 Deleuze wrote:On June 25 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 07:20 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 25 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 07:01 Deleuze wrote:On June 25 2016 06:58 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 06:54 FlaShFTW wrote:On June 24 2016 17:28 hfglgg wrote:On June 24 2016 17:26 FlaShFTW wrote:
[quote]
because thats literally how a democracy works. majority wins. it doesnt. Democracy: control of an organization or group by the majority of its members. >50% = majority. Democracy how again? Um....here in the US we require a two thirds majority to pull shit of this level. We do not allow tyranny of the majority to, say for instance, create new states or amend the constitution. There's a petition to this effect that no-one noticed until this morning I love all the people who are experts on how democracy works and don’t understand the basic concept of tyranny of the majority and that is destroys unions. But hey, you got 1% more than the other side, I guess that is a mandate for this crazy thing that will alter the very fabric of the nation. The vote is over and its done, but whoever said it could be 50% to be valid an idiot. I don't think it's an issue of the dangers of tyranny of the majority (there's no clear majority attempting to oppress a minority). It's an issue of the dangers of making large changes based on a majority that can change with the winds (like you said, for countries with written constitutions status quo is generally stronger than a simple majority when trying to change it). In this case you have 16 million being told having their lives altered and rights they previously enjoyed voided by 17 million. I'm not going to say that its oppression, but I doubt it is going to be fun. Or that the 16 million people are going be passive about their unhappiness once they catch their breath. As mandates go, its pretty weak for the level of change it is imposing on the losing side. The gross population of the UK is 65m. It's a lot of people to have their lives altered by 17m In the US, we have 9 (well, 8 now) people that we never elected affect our lives in numerous ways every day
If you believe judges should be democratically elected you clearly have no clue about the effects it would have on constitutional checks and balances.
|
|
|
On June 25 2016 07:43 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 07:26 Deleuze wrote:On June 25 2016 07:23 Diabolique wrote:
But I take from this whole discussion one very good point, so thanks to the one, who brought it here:
It is stupid to let to decide about this kind of event by a 50% majority. Primarily, when it ends at the end 51.9%:48.1%. It is a valid opinion, but should not cause such a serious action, as that will be against the will of 48%. It was Cameron's mistake, that he just expected, it would be a walkover, and let there the 50%. Yep. It's the stupidest thing. Really. I mean. Christ. Its got to be the most epic political fail in history. Instead of going into the books as one of the greatest Tory leaders leading them to 3 election vinctories (which was certainly.possible with Corbyn as labour leader) he's the one who made the UK leave the EU and potentially the one who causes Scotland to leave the UK. Not the legacy he envisioned I imagine.
UK 1707 to 2016
Nice one DC.
|
On June 25 2016 07:51 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 07:47 Gorsameth wrote:On June 25 2016 07:40 plasmidghost wrote:On June 25 2016 07:39 Deleuze wrote:On June 25 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 07:20 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 25 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 07:01 Deleuze wrote:On June 25 2016 06:58 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 06:54 FlaShFTW wrote:
[quote]
Democracy: control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
>50% = majority. Democracy how again? Um....here in the US we require a two thirds majority to pull shit of this level. We do not allow tyranny of the majority to, say for instance, create new states or amend the constitution. There's a petition to this effect that no-one noticed until this morning I love all the people who are experts on how democracy works and don’t understand the basic concept of tyranny of the majority and that is destroys unions. But hey, you got 1% more than the other side, I guess that is a mandate for this crazy thing that will alter the very fabric of the nation. The vote is over and its done, but whoever said it could be 50% to be valid an idiot. I don't think it's an issue of the dangers of tyranny of the majority (there's no clear majority attempting to oppress a minority). It's an issue of the dangers of making large changes based on a majority that can change with the winds (like you said, for countries with written constitutions status quo is generally stronger than a simple majority when trying to change it). In this case you have 16 million being told having their lives altered and rights they previously enjoyed voided by 17 million. I'm not going to say that its oppression, but I doubt it is going to be fun. Or that the 16 million people are going be passive about their unhappiness once they catch their breath. As mandates go, its pretty weak for the level of change it is imposing on the losing side. The gross population of the UK is 65m. It's a lot of people to have their lives altered by 17m In the US, we have 9 (well, 8 now) people that we never elected affect our lives in numerous ways every day If you believe judges should be democratically elected you clearly have no clue about the effects it would have on constitutional checks and balances. I personally don't, but it shows that far fewer numbers of people decide what's best for everyone than the 17 or so million that voted Leave
The Supreme Court cannot make policy, it can only decide on cases brought before them.
When it comes to policy anything that comes before the Court has already passed through 3 elected institutions (House, Senate, Presidency).
The situations are not comparable in any way, shape or form.
|
On June 25 2016 07:51 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 07:47 Gorsameth wrote:On June 25 2016 07:40 plasmidghost wrote:On June 25 2016 07:39 Deleuze wrote:On June 25 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 07:20 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 25 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 07:01 Deleuze wrote:On June 25 2016 06:58 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 06:54 FlaShFTW wrote:
[quote]
Democracy: control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
>50% = majority. Democracy how again? Um....here in the US we require a two thirds majority to pull shit of this level. We do not allow tyranny of the majority to, say for instance, create new states or amend the constitution. There's a petition to this effect that no-one noticed until this morning I love all the people who are experts on how democracy works and don’t understand the basic concept of tyranny of the majority and that is destroys unions. But hey, you got 1% more than the other side, I guess that is a mandate for this crazy thing that will alter the very fabric of the nation. The vote is over and its done, but whoever said it could be 50% to be valid an idiot. I don't think it's an issue of the dangers of tyranny of the majority (there's no clear majority attempting to oppress a minority). It's an issue of the dangers of making large changes based on a majority that can change with the winds (like you said, for countries with written constitutions status quo is generally stronger than a simple majority when trying to change it). In this case you have 16 million being told having their lives altered and rights they previously enjoyed voided by 17 million. I'm not going to say that its oppression, but I doubt it is going to be fun. Or that the 16 million people are going be passive about their unhappiness once they catch their breath. As mandates go, its pretty weak for the level of change it is imposing on the losing side. The gross population of the UK is 65m. It's a lot of people to have their lives altered by 17m In the US, we have 9 (well, 8 now) people that we never elected affect our lives in numerous ways every day If you believe judges should be democratically elected you clearly have no clue about the effects it would have on constitutional checks and balances. I personally don't, but it shows that far fewer numbers of people decide what's best for everyone than the 17 or so million that voted Leave
No not really. The role of judges is to review the actions of the electorate and elected officials to assure that the laws they pass are both legal and do not violate teh basic rights/rules of the nation. They are powerless unless something is brought before them for review, by design. That is not the case with referendums.
But yes, the number is smaller than 17 million.
|
|
|
Am curious about the odds of Britain leaving the eu within the next 3 years.
Should be lower then 50% Do bookies ever do such long term bets?
And ya,the salt is real as someone said a few pages back. Its amusing.
Though I do think its a mistake and that quiet a few people might genuinely regret their vote or not voting at all.
Chaotic situation now as I see it. Very unclear what will happen coming months,also where it comes to the formation of a new government.
@below:
Boris is what people expect it seems,it remains a very odd situation.
A temporary government just for the transition and then new elections or let them sit out the term while taking no other important decisions?
|
|
|
On June 25 2016 08:07 plasmidghost wrote:
So is Boris Johnson going to become the new prime minister? How does that work in the UK?
I really hope not, not sure i could take him seriously as PM, kinda reminds me of Trump.
|
On June 25 2016 08:09 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 08:07 plasmidghost wrote:
So is Boris Johnson going to become the new prime minister? How does that work in the UK? I really hope not, not sure i could take him seriously as PM, kinda reminds me of Trump.
Pretty much twin brothers.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 25 2016 08:07 plasmidghost wrote:
So is Boris Johnson going to become the new prime minister? How does that work in the UK?
The guy is a (former) mayor not a member of the government. (Tho it is possible)
As I understand it the Tory (conservatives) party (of which Cameron was the leader) will chose a new leader who will then become the new prime minister.
|
|
|
On June 25 2016 08:13 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 08:11 Gorsameth wrote:On June 25 2016 08:07 plasmidghost wrote:
So is Boris Johnson going to become the new prime minister? How does that work in the UK? The guy is a (former) mayor not a member of the government. (Tho it is possible) As I understand it the Tory party (of which Cameron was the leader) will chose a new leader who will then become the new prime minister. Ah, okay. When is the next election for prime minister?
google says may 2020.
|
|
|
On June 25 2016 08:07 plasmidghost wrote:
So is Boris Johnson going to become the new prime minister? How does that work in the UK?
Cameron said he'd expect a new party leader to be appointed by the autumn conference. So all party member will need to vote someone in. Johnson is forerunner but Harriet Harmen (home secretary) is second favourite.
|
|
|
On June 25 2016 08:13 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 08:11 Gorsameth wrote:On June 25 2016 08:07 plasmidghost wrote:
So is Boris Johnson going to become the new prime minister? How does that work in the UK? The guy is a (former) mayor not a member of the government. (Tho it is possible) As I understand it the Tory party (of which Cameron was the leader) will chose a new leader who will then become the new prime minister. Ah, okay. When is the next election for prime minister?
There are three runners that I see:
David Davies
Theresa May (I feel sick at even typing that)
Boris Alexander Johnston
They will be in place by October chosen at the first days of the Conservative conference, listen to Pig David's comments again.
This will all pan out soon. They are neck deep in planning, they know, they won't tell us yet, take that as fact.
Don't think for one second that Boris is a nice happy go lucky guy, he plays that, people buy that, here's some proof that he's as underhand as almost every single person in the UK (well you did vote leave, didn't you?):
http://www.channel4.com/news/boris-johnson-london-propery-deal-china-albert-dock
|
Disgusted at the people here saying there is no mandate.
You are FASCISTS.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fbdym2V.jpg)
EPT
