|
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 22:22 Toadesstern wrote: I can only expect that Cameron wanted to end UKIP for good and thus went with 50% thinking he could get that fairly easily. Even if it was a 60% referendum, does anyone here think we'd be done with it assuming the same outcome from a numbers point of view? The main problem with the slim 52% majority is that people can very realistically argue that if the vote were held again, it would go the other way. Its the the concept of tyranny of the majority was a major argument against democracy back when people were all making democracies. And most democratic governments have systems to protect the minority from a slim 50% majority making huge changes for them. This could never happen in the US political system with just + 50%.
Democracy is partly about perception. People have to believe that the country is moving in the direction that vast majority of the people want. Government is in many ways about faith in the system and fails when people lose faith. And its hard to have faith in something this big that could be very different now that the reality of the change has been made apparent. Also doesn't help that the politicians who pushed for leave straight up lied and admitted they did it.
|
This is a good time to go back and watch Yes Minister episodes, relive my childhood and look for excerpts to poke fun at the British..
Edit: Welp that didnt take long..
+ Show Spoiler +
|
If the UK stays in EEA, and if that's what brexiters want, it won't be funny. It will be beyond insane. Why? Because "take back control" and freedom of movement aren't exactly compatible! You'll still have all the core EU rules.
|
On June 25 2016 22:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 22:22 Toadesstern wrote: I can only expect that Cameron wanted to end UKIP for good and thus went with 50% thinking he could get that fairly easily. Even if it was a 60% referendum, does anyone here think we'd be done with it assuming the same outcome from a numbers point of view? The main problem with the slim 52% majority is that people can very realistically argue that if the vote were held again, it would go the other way. Its the the concept of tyranny of the majority was a major argument against democracy back when people were all making democracies. And most democratic governments have systems to protect the minority from a slim 50% majority making huge changes for them. This could never happen in the US political system with just + 50%. Democracy is partly about perception. People have to believe that the country is moving in the direction that vast majority of the people want. Government is in many ways about faith in the system and fails when people lose faith. And its hard to have faith in something this big that could be very different now that the reality of the change has been made apparent. Also doesn't help that the politicians who pushed for leave straight up lied and admitted they did it.
I love it. The moment the "pro-democracy lefties" lose a vote they shill against democracy, using the same arguments libertarians have been making for 250 years about the idiocy of democracy. It's all well and good until you lose, and lol at the this can't happen in the US. Hey, wake up. We're going to have a President this year who, if lucky will get 40% of the vote. 40 fucking percent. Get out of here with that such momentous decision isn't decided with simple majoritarian rule :p
|
On June 25 2016 22:24 Jockmcplop wrote: Oh i'm not underestimating that, I feel it massively, the result was so stupid and shortsighted its barely believable, and its taken less than 2 days for enough people to probably have changed their minds in the meantime that if they took another vote today I reckon remain would win. That's not how elections work though. You can't just ask for more referendums when the you don't get the result you want. We would be voting daily. It doesn't make sense. No, tearing the UK in three entities and leaving the EU based on a 3% win on a non-binding referendum with a campaign filled with lies and missinformation, ignorant people, where the statistics apparently state that the old generation (who has relatively little to lose) has way more weight in the process than the youth that see their futures jeopardized.
Nah, that makes perfect sense.
I hate politics.
I hate Referenda
I hate this "majority dictatorship", rather than actual democracy as it was intended.
I hate how this 'win' is presented like absolute, unanimous.
I feel so frustrated over the ignorance and the powerlessness of the youth in the UK (should I say Engwales?) as a Dutch student who aspired to do a Masters in England... I cannot imagine how frustrated, angry, paniced and especially powerless I would feel if I were a UK citizen now.
I know finding a solution is hard, but a Brexit based off this 'democratic process' is unfair and, in my opinion, undefendable.
|
powerlessness of youth is sadly not contained to the UK mate.
|
|
|
On June 25 2016 22:37 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 22:30 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 22:22 Toadesstern wrote: I can only expect that Cameron wanted to end UKIP for good and thus went with 50% thinking he could get that fairly easily. Even if it was a 60% referendum, does anyone here think we'd be done with it assuming the same outcome from a numbers point of view? The main problem with the slim 52% majority is that people can very realistically argue that if the vote were held again, it would go the other way. Its the the concept of tyranny of the majority was a major argument against democracy back when people were all making democracies. And most democratic governments have systems to protect the minority from a slim 50% majority making huge changes for them. This could never happen in the US political system with just + 50%. Democracy is partly about perception. People have to believe that the country is moving in the direction that vast majority of the people want. Government is in many ways about faith in the system and fails when people lose faith. And its hard to have faith in something this big that could be very different now that the reality of the change has been made apparent. Also doesn't help that the politicians who pushed for leave straight up lied and admitted they did it. I love it. The moment the "pro-democracy lefties" lose a vote they shill against democracy, using the same arguments libertarians have been making for 250 years about the idiocy of democracy. It's all well and good until you lose, and lol at the this can't happen in the US. Hey, wake up. We're going to have a President this year who, if lucky will get 40% of the vote. 40 fucking percent. Get out of here with that such momentous decision isn't decided with simple majoritarian rule :p The term tyranny of the majority was used John Adams and is heavily referenced throughout written discussions of creating the US government. The Federalist Papers reference it. There is nothing leftist or conservative about the concept of tyranny of the majority, it is a basically concept of democracy and how democratic governments were created. It is a problem that threatens democratic systems. And the idea that people can't vote twice is crazy. Of course they can hold a second non-binding vote. To bar people from doing it if there was sufficent support would be very anti-democratic.
|
Perhaps folks will become motivated to learn why direct democracy is not an end in itself as a silver lining to all of this.
Perhaps not though
|
|
|
On June 25 2016 22:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 22:37 Wegandi wrote:On June 25 2016 22:30 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 22:22 Toadesstern wrote: I can only expect that Cameron wanted to end UKIP for good and thus went with 50% thinking he could get that fairly easily. Even if it was a 60% referendum, does anyone here think we'd be done with it assuming the same outcome from a numbers point of view? The main problem with the slim 52% majority is that people can very realistically argue that if the vote were held again, it would go the other way. Its the the concept of tyranny of the majority was a major argument against democracy back when people were all making democracies. And most democratic governments have systems to protect the minority from a slim 50% majority making huge changes for them. This could never happen in the US political system with just + 50%. Democracy is partly about perception. People have to believe that the country is moving in the direction that vast majority of the people want. Government is in many ways about faith in the system and fails when people lose faith. And its hard to have faith in something this big that could be very different now that the reality of the change has been made apparent. Also doesn't help that the politicians who pushed for leave straight up lied and admitted they did it. I love it. The moment the "pro-democracy lefties" lose a vote they shill against democracy, using the same arguments libertarians have been making for 250 years about the idiocy of democracy. It's all well and good until you lose, and lol at the this can't happen in the US. Hey, wake up. We're going to have a President this year who, if lucky will get 40% of the vote. 40 fucking percent. Get out of here with that such momentous decision isn't decided with simple majoritarian rule :p The term tyranny of the majority was used John Adams and is heavily referenced throughout written discussions of creating the US government. The Federalist Papers reference it. There is nothing leftist or conservative about the concept of tyranny of the majority, it is a basically concept of democracy and how democratic governments were created. It is a problem that threatens democratic systems. And the idea that people can't vote twice is crazy. Of course they can hold a second non-binding vote. To bar people from doing it if there was sufficent support would be very anti-democratic.
Actually, I think it was created by Tocqueville.
|
John Adams first used the phrase "tyranny of the majority" in a 1788 treatise that defends constitutional governance. Tocqueville expanded on it in his 1835 book, Democracy in America.
|
Campaigners to get Britain out of the European Union won their shock victory by building an alliance of older and less-educated voters angry about the way globalization has changed their lives. Now they’re telling people they won’t get what they want.
Vote Leave explicitly targeted people concerned about immigration, warning them that millions of Turks were on their way to Britain. The morning after they won Boris Johnson, their leading spokesman and the favorite to succeed David Cameron as prime minister, began backing away from that message.
“I want to speak directly to the millions of people who did not vote for this outcome, especially young people, who may feel that this decision in some way involves pulling up a drawbridge,” he said. “I think the very opposite is true. We can control our own borders in a way that is not discriminatory but fair and balanced, and take the wind out of the sails of the extremists and those who would play politics with immigration.”
Johnson’s discomfort with the campaign tactics that delivered him victory reflect a deep division within the backers of Brexit. Many at the top want a liberal, free market, low-regulation country modeled on London, the city Johnson led for eight years. Johnson proposed an amnesty for illegal immigrants, and said anyone with a job should be able to come to the country. But the people whose votes they relied on want dramatically reduced immigration and more regulation, even if it means being poorer.
‘Crucial Split’ “It’s a crucial split within the Leave group,” said Gerry Stoker, professor of political science at Southampton University. “It was absolutely clear that a lot of their supporters weren’t just voting for ending new immigration, but for sending back existing immigrants.”
The spokesman for anti-migrant angst isn’t Johnson, but Nigel Farage, whose U.K. Independence Party helped force the referendum in the first place. Farage has long wanted to get out of the EU, but only began to succeed once he linked it in people’s minds to immigration. His argument was that “I’d rather we weren’t slightly richer and I’d rather we had communities that felt more united.”
In the early days of the referendum campaign, Vote Leave rejected an approach focused on immigration, partly because few of their principal spokesmen supported it. But in the final month, it reversed that stance. Farage, frozen out of the official campaign, went further, publishing a poster showing refugees entering the EU that Leave supporter Michael Gove said made him “shudder”.
Taking Sides With the battle won, those around Farage are determined that the focus on immigration shouldn’t be abandoned. “Entirely reasonable to believe that the Conservative Party learned nothing from this vote,” wrote Arron Banks, Farage’s principal donor, on Twitter when he read Johnson’s pro-immigration comments.
If Johnson hopes to lead the country, he will need to decide whose side he’s on. He’s already tasting the problems of taking sides. A popular former London Mayor, he had the jarring experience of winning the country but not his own city, which voted strongly for “Remain.” The day of his triumph, he left his house to be greeted with an angry crowd and shouts of “scum.” www.bloomberg.com
|
On June 25 2016 18:47 deadmau wrote:I'm so fucking happy you guys got your country back. #FREEDOM #LIBERTY Also, apologies for my dumbass President.
Holy shit can people knockoff with stupid graphs? It makes just as much sense if you change Obama to Passover and everyone knows it, only thing it accomplished is the poster goes "teehee I did a smart thing with graph!"
|
On June 25 2016 22:58 farvacola wrote: John Adams first used the phrase "tyranny of the majority" in a 1788 treatise that defends constitutional governance. Tocqueville expanded on it in his 1835 book, Democracy in America.
Oh thanks.
|
Do people really expect that if their president says something it will somehow influence other country's people voting choices ?
|
why does Cameron not resign immediately or within the next 2-3 weeks but wants to wait until October??
|
On June 25 2016 23:13 tenacity wrote: why does Cameron not resign immediately or within the next 2-3 weeks but wants to wait until October??
Britain might literally blow up if he does... and I'm not even using it ironically
|
It's laughable that people are calling for a revote. That sounds like the "vote until democracy gets our desired result" that the EU is known and hated for. The referendum yielded this result, now it's time to live with that new set of conditions and focus on how to make the best of the situation for their benefit. Certainly there are limits to what can be done because the UK has only so much negotiating power, but there is more than one path it can take with regards to how it leaves.
As for the conditions of the referendum, the cutoff, the people who were allowed to vote? Maybe that argument should have been made before the referendum was scheduled, not after. Maybe it was - and that argument failed, despite the fact that this was obviously a pro-Remain government that put that referendum forward. Under the mutually agreed upon conditions, Leave won and Remain did not. You can't just change that because just under half of those who casted a vote didn't get the result they wanted.
|
[B]On June 25 2016 23:24 LegalLord wrote:[/B It's laughable that people are calling for a revote. That sounds like the "vote until democracy gets our desired result" that the EU is known and hated for. The referendum yielded this result, now it's time to live with that new set of conditions and focus on how to make the best of the situation for their benefit. Certainly there are limits to what can be done because the UK has only so much negotiating power, but there is more than one path it can take with regards to how it leaves.
As for the conditions of the referendum, the cutoff, the people who were allowed to vote? Maybe that argument should have been made before the referendum was scheduled, not after. Maybe it was - and that argument failed, despite the fact that this was obviously a pro-Remain government that put that referendum forward. Under the mutually agreed upon conditions, Leave won and Remain did not. You can't just change that because just under half of those who casted a vote didn't get the result they wanted. The fact the leader's of the out campaign are backtracking on theire promises the day after their victory is the most concerning. Their whole campaign was based on fear and now its looking like deceit.
This is what becomes of any country where its populatio make decision based on no manifesto,
We have just spent almost ten years in recession and now the economy is heading into a black hole. I am expecting another ten years before we will recover.
|
|
|
|
|
|